KESHU LAL Vs. CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 18.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Fast Track No.1, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has granted a compensation of Rs.2,81,000/- to the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3, while exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation, the appellant, the owner of the offending vehicle, has sought the refuge of this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Sections 140/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the appellant and respondent Nos.4 & 5 claiming compensation on account of death of Surendra Singh in the road accident. On 20.06.2007 when Surendra Singh was travelling as a passenger in a Tanker, bearing registration No.RJ-27-G-6171, due to the rash and negligent driving of the said tanker, the tanker rolled over a divider and turned turtle. Resultantly, Surendra Singh sustained injuries. Ultimately, he died. THE appellant submitted its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. THE Insurance Company also filed its reply. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues. THE claimants-respondents in support of his claim petition adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. On behalf of non-claimants two witnesses have been examined and some affidavit have also been filed. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the award as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) AS far as the age of the deceased is concerned, according to the post-mortem report, the deceased is said to be fifteen years old. According to the second schedule attached to the M.V. Act, in case the age of the deceased was fifteen years, then a multiplier of fifteen has to be applied. Since the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of fifteen, it has rightly followed the second schedule. Hence, application of multiplier of fifteen cannot be faulted. Therefore, the contention is equally unacceptable.