HARICHARAN Vs. ABDUL RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the deceased is the victim of a 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. The impugned award has been challenged on the sole ground that the proper multiplier, according to the Second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988'), has not been made applicable for determining just compensation.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused 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. By inserting Act 54 of 1994, section 163-A was incorporated in the Motor Vehicles act introducing Second Schedule and the apex Court has approved the multiplier as a structured formula for determining just compensation vide its judgment delivered in the case of General Manager, Kerala state Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC ). 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 filed by the widow, parents and children of the deceased. The Tribunal determined the compensation as 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 various judgments such as Pickett v. British Rail Engineering Ltd. , 1980 ACJ 261 (HL, England) and summarised the issue in para 11 of the judgment which reads as under: