ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of five days. An application is made for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Claimants-respondents/ caveator Nos. 1 and 2 have appeared and contended that they has no objection in condoning the delay. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The defendants respondent No. 3 did not appear but he has been absolved from responsibility, therefore, there cannot be any embargo in passing any order in condoning the delay. No order is passed as to costs.

(2.) It is a case of death of a five years old boy. The compensation awarded is Rs. 2,25,000 by filing the process of multillier of 15 as per Second Schedule under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended before this court that the apportionment of the amount would be on the basis of multiplier of the age of the parents. Admittedly, the age of father is 30 years and the age of mother is 28 years. If we go by the process on the basis of age of the parents, multiplier would be 18. So the compensation will go towards higher side than the awarded amount. That apart learned counsel appearing for claimants- respondents/caveators contended that the ratio of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, 2004 ACJ 53 (SC), cannot be applicable in this case because factually therein the boy who has died in the accident was unmarried and not earning, member. In such circumstance me determination of multiplier was the age of the parents but not the age of the deceased, hence we cannot apply such ratio. However, we do not find anything wrong in taking decision by the learned court below. The case of the claimants are well supported by the ratio of Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan, 2005 ACJ 99 (SC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Anwar Ali, 2003 (3) TAC 12 (Allahabad) and Mohammad Waseem v. Izraul Haq, 2007 ACJ 1434 (Allahabad).