JUDGMENT
K.L. Manjunath, J.
1. Though the matter is listed for orders, by consent of both the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
2. This appeal is by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. The respondents 1 and 2 were the claimants before the Tribunal who are the widow and son of the deceased Chandrashekarappa who died in a road traffic accident on 3-2-1996 near the gate at Ilkal Bus Depot. The deceased was a conductor, drawing a salary of Rs. 2,643/-and he was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal applying the multiplier of 15, has assessed the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,17,160/-. In addition to that, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 4,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss to the estate and Rs. 8,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, in all a sum of Rs. 3,34,160/-has been awarded as compensation. This judgment and award is called in question in this appeal.
3. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has raised two questions. According to him, the claim petition of the claimants was not maintainable as the deceased died during the course of his employment and that the claimants should have filed a claim petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, and that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is erroneous. According to him, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 13. Instead of applying the multiplier of 13, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15. On these two counts, he request this Court to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents contend that the deceased was not on duty at the time of the accident. He further contends that such a contention was not raised by North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation in the statement of objections filed before the Tribunal. However, he is not in a position to dispute the question of the Tribunal applying incorrect multiplier. In these circumstances, what is required to be considered by this Court is whether the claim petition of the respondents was maintainable before the Tribunal and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required to be reduced.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has made available the copy of written statement filed by him before the Tribunal. From the perusal of the statement of objections, it is clear that the appellant has not raised the question of maintainability of the claim petition. When such a contention is not urged by the appellant before the Tribunal, it is not open for the appellant to contend in the appellate stage. Therefore, the first question is answered against the appellant.
5. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 45 years. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 instead of applying the multiplier of 13 as per the judgment of this Court in Gulam Khader and Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr.2001(1) Kar. L.J. 340 (DB) : ILR 2000 Kar. 4416(DB) Therefore, the loss of dependency has to be reduced to Rs. 2,74,880/-. Thus in all the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,91,880/- which is rounded of to Rs. 2,92,000/-.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been reduced from Rs. 3,34,160/- to Rs. 2,92,000/-. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal.