Allahabad High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ... vs Surendra Kumar Son Of Shri Laxmi Narain, ... on 12 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007ACJ1466, 2007(2)AWC2111
Author: Amitava Lala
Bench: Amitava Lala, Pankaj Mithal
JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, J.
1. There is a delay of live days. An application is made for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Claimants respondents/caveators No. 1 & 2 appeared and contended that he has no objection in condoning the delay. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The defendents/respondent No. 3 did not appear but he has been absolved from responsibility therefore, there cannot be any embargo in passing any order in condoning the delay. No order is passed as to costs.
2. It is a case of death of live years old boy. The compensation is awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- by filing the process of multiplier of 15 as per second schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended before this Court that the apportionment of the amount would be on the basis of multiplier of the age of the parents. Admittedly the age of the lather is 30 years when the age of the mother is 28 years. If we go by the process on the basis of age of the parents, the multiplier would be 18. So the compensation will go towards the higher side than the awarded amount. That apart learned Counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents/caveators contended that the ratio of 2004 (1) TAG 3/SC) (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Shri Laxman Iyer and Anr.) cannot be applicable in this case because factually therein the boy who has died in the accident was unmarried and not earning member. In such circumstance the determination of multiplier was the age of the parents I but not the age of the deceased, hence we cannot apply such ratio. However, We do not find anything wrong in taking decision by the learned court below. The case of the claimants are well supported by the ratio of 2004 (I) IAC 63 (SC)(Manju Devi and Anr. v. Musafir Paswan and Anr.) 2003 (3) TAC 12 (All.) (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Anwar Ali and Anr.) and unreported judgment of this Court in First Appeal from Order No. 766 of 2005 (Mohammad Waseem v. Iaraul Haq and Ors.) dated 24th December, 2006.
4. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- which will he remitted in favour of the concerned Tribunal as expeditiously as possible.
5. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed on contest.
6. However, no order is passed as to costs.
Pankaj Mithal, J.
7. I agree.