UMA OJHA Vs. SAT NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . M.L. Mahajan, counsel appearing for the appellant has confined his arguments only with regard to the multiplier which as per the counsel has been wrongly applied in the facts of the present case. Another grievance of the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has directed deposit of entire compensation amount in a fixed deposit without leaving any amount for support and sustenance of the widow of the deceased.

(2.) MS . Manjusha Wadhwa, counsel for the insurance company on advance notice on the other hand contends that the Tribunal has since taken into account the future prospects of the deceased, therefore, multiplier in such like cases can be reduced from the laid down multiplier of the IInd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.