Tribunal erroneously considered his age more than 40 years
and applied the multiplier of 14 in this case. According to learned counsel,
the deceased ... years old person at the time of accident. Therefore,
the multiplier of 16 is essential to be applied for calculation of compensation
amount. The learned
annually to his family.
According to the claimants by applying the multiplier of 10, they
are entitled for compensation ... therefore, the Tribunal erred in
applying the multiplier taking into consideration the income
which he was earning 3 months prior to his retirement
ground of grant of exorbitant
compensation on account of application of wrong multiplier and
deduction of erroneous amount on account of self expenses ... years. Therefore, in case of death of 10 years old
boy the multiplier of "6" was appropriate
ground of grant of exorbitant
compensation on account of application of wrong multiplier and
deduction of erroneous amount on account of self expenses ... years. Therefore, in case of death of 10 years old
boy the multiplier of "6" was appropriate
ground of grant of exorbitant
compensation on account of application of wrong multiplier and
deduction of erroneous amount on account of self expenses ... years. Therefore, in case of death of 10 years old
boy the multiplier of "6" was appropriate
dependents in the family of the deceased, (3)
improper application of multiplier as deceased is
above 55 years, (4) inappropriate split multiplier,
and (5) arithmetical ... appellants
submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly applied
the procedure of split multiplier by dividing the
annual income of deceased in two slots
further submits that there was absolutely no reason
to apply multiplier of only 12. He submits that, as a matter of
fact, going by schedule ... motor vehicle Act, a proper
multiplier applicable is 18. However, the tribunal has not even
applied mind to the same. He, therefore, submits that proper
this, it is
submitted that the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 16
because the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied ... month (Rs.300/- per
day).
13. As regards the multiplier applied by the Tribunal in the present
case, it is evident that the table
deducting
1/3rd towards personal expense of the deceased and applying the
multiplier of 13 the tribunal computed compensation of
Rs.11,27,000/- towards ... Shetty and Ors. (2017) ACJ 2700 has considered the issue
of (1) multiplier to be applied; (2) future prospects; (3)compensation
for non-pecuniary losses
that the learned Member of the tribunal
should not have been adopted multiplier 9 to calculate the loss of
dependency. He has further submitted that ... after two
years and, therefore, the Tribunal should not have been adopted
multiplier 9 for two years. He has further submitted that the
deceased would
