ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Assailing the quantum as directed by the award dated 26-2-2013 passed by 14th MACT Indore in Claim Case No. 803/11, this appeal has been preferred. In the present case, deceased Akash died in a road accident which took place on 14-7-2011. It is said that when the deceased driving the pickup Van bearing No. MP 09-LP-0184 and going towards Shivpuri, the Truck bearing No. MH 04-EY-4891 which was having (old No. UP 78/B/N/-3239) dashed the pickup Van whereby the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was income tax payee, aged 23 years, having his earning Rs. 1,74,530/- p.a. After deduction of the income tax, the earning of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,62,282/-. The deceased was bachelor, therefore half of the amount was deducted and the multiplier as per the age of the deceased was made applicable. While calculating the loss of dependency Rs. 14,60,538/- further adding Rs. 15,000/-, total sum comes to Rs. 14,75,38/- (sic : Rs. 14,75,538/-) has been awarded.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that the Claims Tribunal committed an error to apply the multiplier on the age of the deceased. In fact, the multiplier on the age of mother and father would be applicable whichever is less, however the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal in the head of dependency is on higher side which may be reasonably be reduced. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and in view of the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 ACJ 1253, the arguments as advanced by Shri Jain has no force, hence it is repelled. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation which do not warrant and interference in this appeal.