KANCHAN Vs. KAMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE deceased, in this appeal, is the victim of road accident. The claim petition preferred by the claimants was contested by the other side. The impugned award has been passed by the Tribunal relying upon the evidence led by the parties an challenged by the appellants on the sole ground that the proper multiplier, according to the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (thereinafter "the Act of 1988"), has not been made applicable fordetermining just compensation.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and pursued the record.

(3.) THERE is not much to be dilated upon by the Court as the controversy is specific with regard to the application of multiplier. Section 163 (A), by Act 54 of 1994, was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act introducing second Schedule which provides a formula/ table to determine compensation by specific multiplier. The Supreme Court has approved the multiplier as a structured formula for determining just compensation vide its judgment delivered in case the General manager, Kerala State Road Transport corporation v. Susamma Thomas and others. To determine just compensation, the emphasis has been laid by the Apex Court for application of multiplier, structured formula. It is noticed in the judgment that the deceased was of 38 years of age. The Claim Petition was file by the widow, parents and children of the deceased. The Tribunal determined the compensation of Rs. 58,760/- and the High court enhanced it to Rs. 2,64,000/ -. The supreme Court disagreed with the reasoning of the High Court and relying upon the various judgments such as Pickett v. British Rail engineering Ltd. 2, summarized the issue in para 11 of the judgment which reads as under: