Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie (for claims under section 166 of MV Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under section 163A of MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50 years) :
Age of the deceased (1) Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas (2) Multiplier scale as adopted by Trilok Chandra (3) Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie (4) Multiplier specified in second column in the Table in II Schedule to MV Act (5) Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (6) Upto 15 yrs
-
.
.
15 20
15to20yrs.
16 18 18 16 19
21 to 25 yrs.
15 17 18 17 18
26 to 30 yrs.
14 16 17 18 17
31 to 35 yrs.
13 15 16 17 16
36 to 40 yrs.
12 14 15 16 15
41 to 45 yrs.
11 13 14 15 14
46 to 50 yrs.
10 12 13 13 12
51 to 55 yrs.
9 11 11 11 10
56 to 60 yrs.
8 10 09 8 8
61 to 65 yrs.
6 08 07 5 6

Above 65 yrs

20. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the Table in the Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in column (2) of the Second schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the second Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and not under section 163A of MV Act. In cases falling under section 166 of the MV Act, Davies method is applicable.