Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1687 of 2008 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Others Respondent :- Geeta Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- R.N. Pandey S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- K.N.Mishra
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 278545 of 2008:
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown is sufficient.
4. Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.
5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
6. Let appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two number.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 PS Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1687 of 2008 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Others Respondent :- Geeta Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- R.N. Pandey S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- K.N.Mishra
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. This Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1988”) has been filed by State challenging the judgment and award dated 15.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Deoria in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 39 of 2004 whereby compensation of Rs. 6,42,036.68 has been awarded to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of petition till final payment is made.
2. Heard under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
3. The only argument advanced is that multiplier has wrongly been applied since the age of deceased was 25 years but multiplier of 17 has been applied. However, I find that as per judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 ACJ 1298, for the age of 21 to 25 multiplier should be 18 but in the case in hand, Tribunal has awarded compensation by applying multiplier of 17 and, thus, it cannot be said that compensation has been awarded by applying higher multiplier. In fact the multiplier applied is lower and in favour of the appellant. Hence this argument has no force.
4. No other point has been argued.
5. The appeal lacks merits. Dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 PS