JAYA RAI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.11.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 203 of 1996(R), whereby the learned Single Judge while upholding the Award of the Tribunal practically on all the points, modified the same only to the extent that he determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/ - and after adjusting 1/3rd of this income for the personal expence of the deceased, applied multiplier of 16 and assessed the compensation amount at Rs. 3,84,000/ - and by adjusting Rs. 15,000/ - already received by the claimant, as interim compensation, directed that the insurance Companies shall pay the amount of Rs. 3,69,000/ - with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the entire amount is realised by the appellants/claimants from the two Insurance Companies.

(2.) MR . Tapen Sen, learned counsel for the appellants, has very vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/ -, because the Tribunal had assessed the same @Rs. 5000/ - per month. He also submitted that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, both, should have applied multiplier of 18, instead of 16.

(3.) THE aforesaid two arguments of Mr. Sen are rightly to be rejected because from the evidence on record undoubtedly the Tribunal came to the wrong finding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs, 5000/ -, because the evidence, as adduced by the appellants, itself shown that the monthly income of the deceased at best and utmost could be Rs. 5,000/ - only. For what reasons and for what grounds, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/ - is not borne out either from the evidence or even from perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal. Similarly looking to the age of the deceased and the dependency of the appellants and other relevant factors, application of 16 as multiplier can be held to be fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, because in our considered view. 18 as multiplier could have been at the higher side.