- (1.) HEARD counsel appearing for the appellant and the counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants on the limitation matter(I.A.NO.2662/2008).
(2.) THE application(I.A.No.2662/2008) has been filed by the appellant for condoning the delay of ten days in filing the instant appeal. As sufficient reason has been shown for condoning the delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The I.A.No.2662/2008 is allowed. With the consent of both the parties, the instant appeal is being heard for final disposal. This appeal has been filed against the judgment 29.03.2008 passed in Title (M.V.) Suit No.114/2006 directing the New India Assurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- in total within one month from the date of the order to the plaintiffs failing which the plaintiffs shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till realisation of the decreetal amount. The case of the claimant, in brief, is that on 24.05.2006 at about 10 P.M., Subhas Yadav @ Subhas Gope(deceased) who was khalasi of the offending vehicle/truck bearing registration no.JH-10J-7964 was on duty and when the said truck reached near Parasiya Joria Pool, started rolling backward due to heavy charhai(up) and due to running of the truck towards back side, the driver of the said vehicle told the khalasi of the said truck to jump from the truck and to give some stones into the wheel of the truck to obstruct the movement of the wheel of the truck towards backward side and on such attempt by the khalasi, the back wheel of the truck came upon the deceased resulting his instant death at the spot. In respect of the said incident, an information was lodged in Putki P.S. and a case was registered under Sections 279/304(A) I.P.C.
(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the appellant-Company has submitted that the trial court has awarded compensation to the claimant without considering the appropriate number of the multiplier. The trial court has taken 17 as multiplier which is excessive and unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the deceased was only 21 years of age at the time of occurrence and he was unmarried. The parents of the deceased were 61 and 56 years of age at the relevant period. Therefore, the number taken as the multiplier is absolutely illegal. According to law it should be 8 to 10. Counsel for the claimant-respondent has submitted that she has no objection if the Insurance-Company pay the claimant a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs as lumpsum amount. Counsel appearing for the Insurance-Company has grievance only with respect to the number of the multiplier which is taken by the trial court as 17 and has awarded compensation amounting to Rs.4,08,000/- to the claimant. ;