UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. LEENA.T.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals are by the Insurance Company and the claimants before the Tribunal. I see from M.A.C.A.No.1171 of 2007, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, that notice has not been served on respondents 2 and 3, the minor children of the deceased in the accident. Respondents 5 and 9 also have not been served, being the other legal representatives of the deceased. Finding that there is substantial representation and also an appeal by the claimants, this Court is of the opinion that service on all the respondents can be deemed.

(2.) There is no appearance for the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.756 of 2007.

(3.) The insurance Company has claimed that there could not have been a compensation granted under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for brevity "MV Act"], since the claimants' specific claim was of a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- for the deceased. The Tribunal considered the annual income as Rs.40,000/- and applied the multiplier of 13 and had granted the compensation without looking at the schedule. It is also pertinent that the Tribunal had found MACA.1171/2007 and - 6 -756/2007 negligence on the bus, which had hit the motor-bike in which the deceased was travelling. In such circumstances, the Tribunal could have given an opportunity to the claimants to convert the application to one under Section 166 of the MV Act.