Point of Law: Accident claim - If a person died before that period due to some other reasons not connected to the accident and the claim petition filed for the compensation for personal injury sustained to him in the accident came up for consideration before the tribunal thereafter, the tribunal cannot mechanically adopt the multiplier used for the age group

JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal filed by the 3rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No. 3316/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. It is a claim petition filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition was filed by one Shaji s/o Thankappan. Pending the claim petition, Shaji died and his legal heirs are impleaded as petitioners 2 to 5. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The short facts are like this :

On 27.10.2004 at about 7.30 pm, the deceased 1st petitioner, a pedestrian was knocked down by a goods carrier autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-8/S 4758 driven by the 2nd respondent. He sustained serious injuries and he was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, and was treated as an inpatient in the hospital. Subsequently, he filed the claim petition claiming compensation for his personal injuries sustained in the accident. Pending the claim petition, he died on 16.4.2011. Thereafter, his legal heirs were impleaded as petitioners 2 to 5 before the Tribunal.

3. To substantiate the case, Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the petitioners. One witness was examined on the side of the petitioners as PW1. Ext.X1 is the case record. After going through the evidence and the documents, the Tribunal found that the petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,48,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. While assessing the disability compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the 20% whole body disability of the deceased 1st petitioner. He was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and hence the multiplier “15” was taken by the tribunal for assessing the disability compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company.

4. Heard the counsel for the 3rd respondent and the counsel for the petitioners.

5. An interesting point is raised by the senior counsel, who appeared for the 3rd respondent. He submitted that the accident, in this case, occurred on 27.10.2004. The claim petition was filed in the year 2004 itself. Pending the claim petition, the injured who was the original claimant died on 16.4.2011 and admittedly the death was not connected to the injury sustained to him in the accident. Subsequently, his legal heirs were impleaded. The Tribunal while assessing the disability compensation, the multiplier 15' is taken based on the age of the injured as on the date of the accident. The senior counsel submitted that the applicable multiplier is 7', because, the original petitioner who is the injured died on 16.11.2011. Hence, the Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier as 15' instead of 7'.

6. The counsel for the petitioners seriously opposed the above argument. The counsel submitted that the Tribunal has correctly taken the multiplier as 15'. According to the counsel, the multiplier is to be adopted based on the age of the injured as on the date of the accident. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court which is reported in Kirti & Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [CDJ (2021) SC 8]. The counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another [2010 (2) KLT 802]. The counsel argued that the Tribunal ought to have considered the claim petition based on the situation as on the date of the accident or date of the claim petition. He submitted that the multiplier that is applicable in the case of the petitioner is admittedly 15' as per Sarla Verma's case. Simply because, the injured died subsequently, this Court may not change the multiplier.

7. The short point to be decided is whether the multiplier can be changed based on the death of the injured after the accident due to some other reasons or whether we should a