URMILA Vs. RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANTS-APPELLANTS have called in question the legal propriety of the award dated 12. 12. 2003, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, shajapur (in short 'the Tribunal') in Claim case No. 83 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal being moved by an application preferred under section 166 of the Act by the legal representatives of the deceased Mahesh prasad Saxena, a constable, aged about 44 years, who was working in the M. P. Police and getting salary of Rs. 6,229, granted compensation of Rs. 6,37,100, which included Rs. 10,000 for love and affection and another Rs. 10,000 for expectation for life.

(2.) THE factum of accident, the validity of insurance policy, non-breach of conditions of licence, income of the deceased, the age of the deceased and other ancillary and subsisting facts, which are essential to be addressed for the purpose of adjudication of the claim are not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties. The cavil, in essence, relates to quantum.

(3.) SUBMISSION of Mr. Sanjay Patwa is that the Tribunal has erred in two aspects, namely, it has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased and secondly, the multiplier of 12 has been applied though the multiplier of 15 could have been applied.