R MANI Vs. NAND FAST TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the claimants appellants against an award dated 30th March, 1999 passed under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The claimants are the father, mother and two sisters of the deceased who died in a fatal accident on 17th December, 1995. By the aforesaid award the learned Tribunal determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 62,400/- and a consolidated cost of Rs. 1,600/- for payment to the claimants appellants jointly which would be divided equally amongst them.

(2.) It was not disputed that the deceased was 16 years old while he died in a fatal accident on 17th December, 1995. The said deceased had an earning of Rs. 600/- per month at the time of his death, was also not controverted by the respondents is the proceeding before the Accident Claims Tribunal. The death is a fatal accident on 17th December 1995 because of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in question, was also established in evidence before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The father of the deceased being 47 years old and his wife 37 yrs old, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier method for the purpose of determining the compensation by taking into account the age of the father, one of the dependents which is higher than the other dependents. The learned Tribunal accordingly, by taking the normal expectancy of life as 60 years held that the multiplier will be 13 and ascertained the damages for compensation at Rs. 62,400/- on the basis of the earnings of the said deceased at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month by deducting 1/3 from the said earnings for personal expenses of the deceased.

(3.) The Insurer of the vehicle did not challenge the said award nor filed any cross objection to the appeal filed by the claimants. On the other hand the claimants preferred the above appeal for enhancement of the amount of award on the ground that the selection of multiplier as 13 in the facts and circumstances of this case was bad in law in as much as the normal expectancy of life of the dependants of the deceased should have been counted in between 65 and 70 instead of 60. It is recorded that earnings of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month and his dependency expenditure at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month have not been challenged before us by the Insurer respondent. In these state of things only question left to be decided in this appeal is whether the learned tribunal was right in applying 13 years multiplier for calculating just and proper compensation in this case.