The appropriate multiplier for compensation in fatal accident claims should align with established guidelines, ensuring future income prospects are accounted for, enhancing total awarded compensation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the Award passed in O.P.(MV) No.29/2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala.

2. Appellants are the claimants in the above O.P.(MV) and the legal heirs of deceased Suresh Babu. The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) claiming a total compensation of Rs.20 lakhs on account of the death of deceased Suresh Babu (hereinafter be referred as the deceased). The 1^st appellant is the wife, 2^nd appellant is the mother and appellants 3 and 4 are the minor children of the deceased.

3. The incident was on 30.06.2008 at about 4.30 p.m. near Kadaplamattom junction in Kidangoor-Kadaplamattom road, while the deceased was traveling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL- 05/M 1403 driven by the 1^st respondent. Though, he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, he succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent. 2^nd respondent is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and 3^rd respondent is the insurer.

4. Before the Tribunal, 1^st and 2^nd respondents remained ex-parte.

5. The 3^rd respondent insurer filed written statement denying the insurance coverage with respect to the offending vehicle on the date of accident. Policy with respect to the vehicle for the period from 22.7.2007 to 21.7.2008 is admitted. It is also contended that the vehicle was transferred long before and the present policy was taken in the name of the 2^nd respondent by suppressing the facts of transfer, hence, the policy is void abenitio due to suppression of material facts. The accident was not reported to the insurer by the insured and it is a violation of terms of contract of insurance. Appellants/claimants are put to strict proof of the income and occupation of the deceased. It is also contended that the quantum of compensation claimed is very high.

6. RW1 and 2 were examined. Exhibit B1, X1 and X2 were marked from the side of the respondents. Exhibit A1 to A8 were marked from the side of the appellants/claimants (hereinafter be referred as claimants).

7. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence and materials found that there is violation of conditions of policy and insurance company is entitled to get reimbursement from 1^st and 2^nd respondents. Claimants were allowed to realise a compensation of Rs.14,28,526/-.

8. In this case, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads are as follows:

9. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal under various heads, claimants came up in appeal before this Court on various grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal.

10. Though notice was duly served upon 1^st and 2^nd respondents there was no appearance on behalf of them before this Court. The Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the 3^rd respondent insurance company. Lower court records were called for and perused. Both sides were heard.

11. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the deceased was a police constable and his income was proved duly through Exhibit A8 the salary certificate. The gross salary was Rs.16,031/- but the Tribunal applied split multiplier by adopting multiplier of 11, though the deceased was 43 years and the proper multip