SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. RAM SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Mangat Ram, a vegetable seller died in a road accident on 15th April, 1989. Appellants filed Suit No. 148/89 for grant of compensation on 22.5.1989. MACT assessed the annual income of deceased at Rs. 1,500.00 p.m., deducted Rs. 500.00 for his personal expenses and determined the dependency at Rs. 1,000.00 p.m. and applied a multiplier of 13 to it to award compensation of Rs. 1.56 lacs with 12% interest.

(2.) Appellants feel dissatisfied and have filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation. The only plea taken by their Counsel was that MACT had applied allow multiplier of l3 when it ought to be l7as per Amendment Act 54 of 1954 which came in force from l4.11.1994.

(3.) A perusal of impugned award shows that MACT had applied the multiplier of 13 in the light of Apex Court judgment in Sushma Thomas' case. It could not have applied the multiplier as per the Schedule brought in force by 54 amendment because that was applicable prospectively from 14.11.1994. But all the same Tribunal ought to have taken in regard the subsequent judgment of Apex Court in U.P. Road Transport Corporation case 1996 ACJ 831=1 (1996) ACC 592 (SC) providing for maximum multiplier of 18 and also the Schedule brought in by the amendment, for applying a reasonable multiplier because it was passing the award in 1997. That was permissible even under the DB judgment of this Court in Rattan Lal Mehta v. Rajinder Kapoor, 1996 ACJ 372=11 (1996) ACC 1.