The correct application of multipliers in compensation cases must align with the exact age of the deceased at the time of the accident.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been preferred by the 3rd respondent National Insurance Company Ltd. in OP(MV) 1633 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging the award as excessive.

2. The OP(MV) No.1633 of 2012 was filed by the legal heirs of deceased Prasannan Pillai, who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 14.06.2012. The deceased was travelling along with his wife and children in a Tata Indica Car from Guruvayoor to Kollam, and at Cherthala, KL 7Q 7680 Tipper lorry owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent dashed against his car. Sri.Prasannan Pillai and his daughter Devika succumbed to the injuries.

3. The offending vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent as on the date of accident. The legal heirs claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. They adduced evidence by examining PWs 1 to 4 and marking Exts. A1 to A33. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. On analysing the facts and evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.45,74,120/-. Alleging the compensation as excessive, the Insurer has come up with this appeal.

4. Now let us have a re-appraisal of the facts and evidence to find out whether the impugned award warrants any interference.

5. The main argument of the appellant is with respect to the compensation assessed on loss of dependency. According to them, the Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.61,710/-, though Ext.A21 salary certificate showed his annual income as Rs.6,92,846/-. So his monthly income could have been calculated as Rs.57,737/- only. Moreover nothing was deducted towards income tax. So the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’ as Rs.44,43,120/- is liable to be revised, according to them. It is true that his annual income was Rs.6,92,846/- as born out from Ext.A21 and so, his monthly income could have been Rs.57,737/-. But being a permanent employee between the age group of 50-60, 15% increase towards future prospects would have been granted. But that was not given. It is true that nothing was deducted towards income tax, but the future prospects of 15% addition was denied. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 9 stating that the deceased was aged 56. But, Ext.A20 document shows his date of birth as 25.11.1956. The accident occurred on 14.06.2012. So, as on the date of accident the deceased was aged only 55 years and 7 months. The multiplier applicable to the age group of 51 to 55 is 11, as held by the Apex Court inSarala Varma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ]. The sine qua non to select the multiplier is the attainment of the specified age mentioned in the table and not the running of the age into the next group, as held by the Apex Court in Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan [1986 KLT online 1455 SC]. The deceased Prassanan Pillai had not attained the age of 56 on the date of accident. So the multiplier ought to have been 11 instead of 9. If that was done by the Tribunal, the compensation for loss of dependency might have been even higher, than the amount awarded. The Tribunal awarded compensation under other heads as per the prevailing law and judicial pronouncements then holding the field. So, there is no ground to reduce the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal.

6. The learned counsel Sri.V.Premchand appearing for the additional 4th respondent submitted that the 1st respondent lost her husband and daughter in the accident, and the 2nd respondent, a disabled son, is totally bed ridden and he is under her care and custody. Considering that fact also he prayed for not reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is true that the impugned award has not been challenged by the respondents herein. Considering the facts and circumstances narrated above, the appeal filed by the Insurer is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost