Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2) Whether this petition was bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

3) Whether the appellant-Insurance company had proved that the deceased conductor had no valid license as on the date of accident.

Therefore, he is not liable to satisfy the award?

4) Whether the appellant-Insurance company in MFA No.102126/2015 proves that the compensation granted by the trial Court is excessive with regard to loss of dependency?

5) Whether split multiplier is applicable for calculating loss of dependency?

57. Point No.5: It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 48 years as on the date of accident. He had left only 12 years of service. In this case, the multiplier applicable is '13'. However, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased would have been getting pension. Because, the deceased was an employee of NWKSRTC. It is not brought to the notice that it is a pensionable job. It is not known whether, he is given likesum amount like gratuity etc., If split multiplier is taken into consideration for the period of 12 years. Only for one year multiplier has to be split. Having regard to this fact, I find that it is not justifiable to apply the theory of split multiplier. Therefore, split multiplier will not apply to this case. Hence, point No.5 answered in the negative.

e. The deceased was employed in the M/s. Pearl Polymers Ltd., as Deputy General Manager and was earning Rs.47,123/- per month up to 24.09.2012 and with other allowances making the gross salary as Rs.81,314/- per month. But, as per the appointment letter, the deceased was placed under probation for a period of six months extendable in the event of satisfactory performance on or before the completion of probationary period. On the date of accident, the deceased was still under probation, it was up to 23.03.2013, but, he died on 18.12.2012. In this view, the Tribunal ought to have computed the loss of dependency on Rs.47,123/- only with split multiplier.

f. The Tribunal committed an error in not properly deducting the income tax as per the rules, it ought to have deducted 30% towards income tax. g. The Tribunal committed an error in adding the future prospectus at 30% by placing reliance on Rajesh case. By study of papers pertains to the employment of the deceased did not fall under either category i.e., he was neither in the permanent employment or self employment.

h. The Tribunal committed an error in not adopting the split multiplier system. As per Ex.P22, the retirement at the age of 58 years, but the deceased was aged about 47 years and multiplier applicable is 13 only. Therefore, the age of retirement falls within the multiplier. Therefore, the period of retirement is only 11 years. Hence, for full salary to be taken for 11 multiplier only. Then if he entitled for any pension then the same to be calculated by applying multiplier as 2.