The multiplier for compensation must be based on the completed age of the deceased, and legal heirs are entitled to compensation for pain and suffering.

JUDGMENT :

(Johnson John, J.)

The petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 508 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Saheer. According to the petitioners, on 15.2.2019, while the deceased was walking through the side of the National Highway, motor cab driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the deceased and thereby, he sustained fatal injuries and subsequently succumbed to his injuries on the same day. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer.

3. Before the Tribunal, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked from the side of the petitioners and Exhibit X1 and X2 were also marked. No evidence adduced from the side of the respondents.

4. Heard Sri. Binoy Ram V., the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Rajan P. Kalliyath, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal for calculating the compensation is not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]. It is pointed out that even after recording a finding that the deceased was aged 55 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of ‘9’ on the ground that the deceased has already completed the age of 55 years at the time of the accident.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that for persons aged between 51-55 years, the multiplier applicable is 11. But, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company argued that the multiplier is to be selected on the basis of the running age and not on the basis of the completed age and since the running age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 56, the Tribunal is justified in applying the multiplier of ‘9’.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company cited the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Mehrunnisa v. Dastagir Miyan [Laws (Kar) 2020 12 144] and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Geeta and others [Laws (DLH) 2018 4 450] in support of the argument that the multiplier is to be selected on the basis of the running age and not completed age. But, the learned counsel for the appellants cited the decision of this Court in Meera P.O and another v. Ananda P. Naik and others [2022 (1) KHC 591] and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Shashikala and others v. Gangalakshmamma and another [(2015) 9 SCC 150] in support of the argument that the multiplier is to be selected on the basis of the completed age and not on the basis of the running age. In Shashikala (supra), while selecting the multiplier of the deceased who had completed the age of 45 years, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:

16. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16-6-1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14-12-2006, the deceased was aged 45 years 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. ...”

8. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation [2018 (1) KLT 3094 (SC)] in support of the contention that the multiplier is to be selected on the basis of the running age. In the said case, the Tribunal, after recording a finding that the appellant was 36 years of age, applied the multiplier of 16 and the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier