(1.) THIS first appeal from the award dated 15.4.1982 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short 'the Tribunal'), was earlier decided by me vide my judgment dated 23.4.1986.
(2.) BIMLA Devi Appellant, mother of Sunil Kumar Aggarwal deceased who was the victim of the unfortunate accident, had filed this appeal through a lawyer who has since shifted his practice to the Supreme Court. Therefore, none was present on her behalf on 23.4.1986. I affirmed the award made by the learned Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. Review Application No. 22 -CII of 1987 was filed by the Appellant which was allowed by me vide my order dated 2.9.1987. I recalled my judgment aforesaid and directed the appeal to be heard once again on its merits.
(3.) ON evidence it has been found that the Appellant is 55 years of age. The learned Tribunal worked out the dependency of the Appellant on the deceased for a period of 10 years and awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/ -. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has with some amount of vehemence urged before me that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal has resulted in awarding a grossly inadequate compensation to the Appellant. He placed reliance on Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation : 1982 ACJ 300 (Delhi), wherein the father and the mother of the deceased were aged 63 and 59 years respectively and the multiplier of 16 years' purchase dependency was applied to work out the compensation payable to them. He also relied on a judgment of this Court in Hans Raj v. Neelam Chopra : 1986 ACJ 152 (P and H), wherein the deceased was 25 years of age and his mother has been awarded compensation by applying a multiplier of 16 to the annual loss to the estate of the deceased on his death.