REJI PHILIP AND ORS. Vs. YATHEENDRADAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the claimants in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2636/1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam challenging the quantum. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted before us that a young woman aged 31 years, who was holding Ph.D in Photonics, met with a motor vehicle accident on 4.12.1995 and succumbed to the injuries. The husband and mother of the deceased filed the compensation claim claiming a total compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,64,000/ -. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal preferred.

(2.) THE case of the appellants is that even though she was aged 31 years, multiplier of 12 alone is considered by the Tribunal. Going by the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ : 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) the multiplier will be 16. It is also the submission that she was a Ph.D. holder in Photonics from Cochin University of Science and Technology. Thereafter she had undergone training in Quality Control of Seafoods from the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology. She also participated in so many other symposiums. Further submission is that her skill was assessed by the Department of Employment, Education and Training in Australia. It is an indication that she is entitled for employment and migration to Australia. It is also the submission that she was working in Germany during the period from 2.5.1994 to 20.9.1995 and at that point of time she was earning an income of Rs. 40,000/ - per month. It is also the submission that after return from abroad, she was awarded Research Associateship by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi on a monthly stipend of Rs. 3,000/ -. While she was conducting this research, she met with the above accident. Even though at the time of accident, she was receiving a stipend of Rs. 3,000/ -, the Tribunal only took a monthly income of Rs. 1,500/ - and used the multiplier of 12.

(3.) IT is an admitted case that appeal preferred by the Insurance Company before this Court in respect of the same award is dismissed by order dated 23.6.2005 in M.A.C.A. No. 497/2005. While the said appeal was dismissed, this Court opined as follows: