DEEKONDA NAGAIAH Vs. LAUL TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the award dated 06.12.2004 in O.P.No.2412 of 2001 passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T -cum -IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts (Fast Track Court., at Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal., the claimants preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is thus:

(3.) CRITICIZING the compensation as low and inadequate, learned counsel for appellants mainly argued that Tribunal while computing the compensation ought to have adopted multiplier system following second schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act.. He submitted that Honourable Apex Court in a recent decision reported in Puttamma v. K.L.Narayana Reddy while recommending the Central Government for amending the out -dated second schedule table provided under Section 163A of MV Act, has provided certain fixed compensations for the death of persons of different age groups. Learned counsel submitted that the compensation may be enhanced in the lines of that decision.