JUDGMENT
G. Bikshapathy, J.
1. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is disposed of finally at admission stage.
2. The appeal is filed against the orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. Judge, Adilabad dated 25-12-1997 in O.P. No. 388 of 1995. The accident took place on 28-6-1995 in which one Mohd. Affan died. Consequently, the legal representatives and the dependants of the said deceased filed O.P. No. 388 of 1995 claiming compensation for a total sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
(1) Whether the deceased Md. Affan died in the accident occurred on 28-6-1995 due to rash and negligent driving with vehicle bearing No. KA 01/7558 by its driver?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?
(3) To what relief?
The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and the material placed before the Court held that the accident arose on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. Coming to the aspect of award of compensation, the Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs. 5,70,000/- in the following heads:
Loss of dependency Rs. 5,40,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of estate & expectation of life Rs. 10,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
The compensation was directed to be paid with interest at 15% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company and also the insured filed the present appeal before this Court.
3. The only point that is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner (sic. appellants) is that the multiplier applied by the lower Court is not in accordance with the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sushamma Thomas and Ors., . According to the learned Counsel, the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case is 12.79 whereas the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15. He submits that the multiplier of 15 is applicable only in respect of claims made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, in respect of the claims made under Section166 of the Act, the only multiplier that could be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case is only 12.79 and if that multiplier is applied, the compensation amount would come to Rs. 4,60,440/-.
4. Though the learned Counsel for the respondents tried to sustain the order of the lower Court with regard to the applicability of the multiplier, yet, in the wake of Section 163-A of the Act, it has to be confined only to the applications made under the said provisions. Admittedly, in the instant case, the application was filed under Sec.166 of the Act and the multiplier as set out by this Court in various cases has to be taken note of and in such a case the proper multiplier would be 12.79.
5. Under the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the lower Court failed to apply the correct multiplier and accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is modified and the following compensation is awarded.
Loss of dependency - Rs. 4,60,440/-
Loss of consortium - Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of estate & expectation of life - Rs. 10,000/-
Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000/-
The claimants are entitled for the aforesaid amount together with interest at 15% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation and also costs as awarded by the lower Court. The appellant shall now deposit this amount before the lower Tribunal within a period of six weeks and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed among the claimants in accordance with the order passed by the lower Tribunal.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above modification. No costs.