Abdul Rehim, J.

1. The claimants as well as the insurance company are in appeal against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(M.V.)No.393/2006. Challenge in both these appeals are against the justifiability of the quantum of compensation awarded. When the insurance company is contending that the amount awarded is excessive, the claimants are contending that it is insufficient and inadequate. There is no dispute in both these appeals against the findings of the Tribunal on the aspects of negligence and liability of the insurance company.

2. The accident in question occurred on 25.12.2005. A youngster aged 23 years, who was riding on a motorcycle, was hit by a car, which was insured with the appellant in MACA No. 921/2010. The Tribunal found that the driver of the car was negligent and hence the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. Contention of the appellant/insurance company is mainly on the aspect that the income adopted by the Tribunal for computing the loss of dependency is on the higher side. Learned standing counsel of the appellant/insurance company pointed out that, as on the date of the accident, the person died was not employed anywhere. But the Tribunal had computed his income based on the evidence that he got an employment under the State Government as an Excise Guard. It is the further contention that the income computed based on the salary of an Excise Guard was erroneous, because he was not actually drawing any salary as on the date of the accident as that of an Excise Guard.

3. On a perusal of the impugned award it is evident that, the claimants have produced Exts.A8 to A10 documents, which would reveal that the State Government had issued appointment order to the deceased posting him as an Excise Guard, under the compassionate employment scheme, since his father died-in-harness while in the service of the State Government. Ext.A9 is the appointment order issued to the person died, appointing him as an Excise Guard, pursuant to Ext.A8 Government order. Ext.A10 is the physical fitness certificate issued by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam on 19.11.2002. On a perusal of a copy of Ext.A8 it is evident that the Government had issued the said order on 3.5.2005, in which the Commissioner of Excise was directed to issue necessary posting, after verification of the testimonials. Ext.A8 letter was issued from the General Administration Department of the Government Secretariat, which would reveal that a vacancy of Excise Guard in Ernakulam district was earmarked for appointment of the deceased, under the compassionate employment scheme. It indicates that, the order sanctioning appointment will be issued from the Home Department. The Tribunal, on considering Ext.A21 certificate issued from the Excise Divisional Office, found that the salary available to an Excise Guard as on the date of death of the person concerned was Rs.5,427/-. The said amount was taken as basis for arriving at the multiplicand. Contention of learned standing counsel is that, since the deceased had not joined duty as on the date of the accident, he cannot be considered as a person employed in the State Government as Excise Guard. Therefore the salary adopted for the purpose of fixing the multiplicand is illegal and unacceptable, is the contention.

4. We are of the considered opinion that the method adopted by the Tribunal is not vitiated in any manner. Going by the documents it is evident that the person died had secured a job under the State Government and he was issued with an order of appointment, about few months prior to the date of the accident. Therefore there existed a certainty with respect to his employment as Excise Guard, had he been alive. But for the accident, he would have definitely joined in the said job and continued under the employment. Therefore we find no fault in the method adopted by the Tribunal in fixing the multiplicand.

5. Another contention raised by the