1. First Appeal No. 2423 of 2002 is at the instance of the Insurance Company whereas the other appeal being First Appeal No. 754 of 2003 is at the instance of the claimants, by which the selfsame award passed by the Tribunal below has been challenged.
2. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,31,000/- for the death of the victim. It will not be out of place to mention here that in the claim application, the total claim was of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. The learned Tribunal below, on consideration of the materials on the record, came to the conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred and that the victim was aged 28 years. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the prospective income of the victim should be treated at Rs.2500/- a month, but while applying the multiplier of 17, it deducted only Rs.500/- towards the personal expenses of the victim though, according to the law, it should be Rs.800/-.
4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company contended that if the personal expenses is deducted, then the actual dependency would come to Rs.1700/- per mensem or Rs.20,400/- per annum.
5. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant, however, contended that the victim being 28 years of age, the number of multiplier should be 18 and not 17.
6. After taking into consideration the fact that the Tribunal has failed to deduct further amount of Rs.300/- a month, which is equivalent to Rs.3600/- per annum as personal expenses, even if the multiplier is increased by one, the amount of compensation would virtually come to the same.
7. Having regard to the fact that the victim had no fixed service and he earned on daily labour and after taking into consideration the age of the victim as well as the evidence as regards monthly income, I am of the view that the amount of Rs.4,31,000/- awarded by the Tribunal does not deserve interference. I, accordingly, dismiss both the appeals filed by the parties and confirm the order of the Tribunal below. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
UMESH (BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA,CJ)