- (1.) THIS is an appeal by the claimants. The claimants, the mother, wife and children of deceased, Amir Hussain, approached the Claims Tribunal for compensation of the plea that Amir Hussain died as a result of an accident on 2.10.1993. While he was riding on Scooter, he was hit by a Matador Van and the accident was as a result of the negligence on the part of Matador driver, who was also its owner. Evidence was adduced on the income that was being earned by Amir Hussain. Though the Tribunal did not fully accept the evidence, in that behalf, it came to a finding on the basis of the available material that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2000.00 . The claims Tribunal after reducing the amount that would be spent by the deceased on himself, valued the dependency at Rs. 1300.00 per month. The annual dependency was thus calculated as Rs. 15,600.00 . Applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation was adjudged at Rs. 2,34,000.00 . A sum of Rs. 10,000.00 was awarded for loss of expectation of life. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 2,44,000.00 was awarded. But the Tribunal fixed a time for the Insurance Company for making the payment as two months from the date of the award and provided that in case the amount was not paid within that time, interest at the rate of 12% per annum would accrue from the date of the passing of the award.
(2.) BEING not satisfied with this award, the claimants who had made an original claim for Rs. ,00000.00 , find the appeal in this Court. The learned Single Judge, on considering the relevant materials, dismissed the appeal finding no reason for interference. The decision thus rendered is challenged before us in this appeal. 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Tribunal should have adopted a multiplier of 18 in the circumstances of the case and the application of multiplier of 15 alone was not justified. Counsel relied on the decision of Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s. Jasbir Kaur, 2003 (4) JCR 196 (SC): (2003) 7 SCC 484, to justify his submission that the multiplier could have been 18.
(3.) THE Tribunal was justified in applying the principles, discussed and settled elaborately by the Supreme Court in General Manager. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors., AIR 1994 SCC 1631, to adopt the multiplier of 15. The learned Single Judge also did not find any reason to interfere in the context of the case. Sitting in further appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, we are not satisfied that we will be justified in interfering with the adoption of 15 as the multiplier. In this context, we have also notice the argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that really speaking, there is no legal evidence on the monthly income earned by the deceased and the fixing of the figure at Rs. 2000.00 was not justified, although we are satisfied that interference on that aspect need not be made.;