CHHAYA SARKAR Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question has been raised by Mr. Saidur Rahaman, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, in this appeal, apart from other common issues. The victim was a bachelor. He died in the accident leaving him surviving his parents. As per the voter identification card, the victim was 23 years old and his mother was 36 years old, as claimed by the claimants. Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, has raised doubt, and in our view, very rightly.

(2.) Mr. Rahaman would, however, raised a legal issue as to whether the Tribunal was justified in choosing the multiplier considering the age of the mother and ignoring the age of the victim. He would contend, the decision in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and Another,2013 11 ACC 907, the Larger Bench discussed the decision in the case of Smt. Sarala Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 3 ACC 708 and observed, in all cases the Second Schedule to the said Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be followed as a rough and ready mode of calculation of compensation. According to Mr. Rahaman, the Second Schedule would consistently suggest, the choice of multiplier would be dependent upon the victim's age. According to Mr. Rahaman, the decision in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors.,, 1996 1 ACC 592, was overruled by implication.

(3.) On the other issue, Mr. Rahaman would submit, the Tribunal ignored the assertion with regard to the income of the victim. Even if it was not proved, the ratio decided Laxmi Devi and Others v. Mohammad Tabbar and Another,, 2008 2 ACC 364, should be followed.