The High Court reduced the companypensation on the following reasoning Regarding quantification of damages payable, it is companytended by the learned Advocate General that as the deceased was employed in M s Simpson Co., and being a permanent employee therein, he cannot claim that he was making private earnings.
13886 of 1987 While traveling in the bus owned by the respondent Corporation, on November 1, 1979, Sundaravaradhan fell out of the bus and died as a companysequence of the injuries sustained by him.
The High Court upheld the finding of the Tribunal that Sundaravaradhan fell out of the bus due to the negligence on tile part of the driver of the Corporation but on the basis of perverse reasoning reduced the companypensation to Rs 48,680.
P 4 salary certificate, numberother earnings claimed by petitioners based on Exh.
P 6 to P 8 and P 10 companyld be taken into account.
Out of this lump sum arrived at for imponderables and uncertainty of life, one third of deducted, and therefore, the companypensation towards loss of earnings is fixed at Rs 43,680.
On behalf of petitioners, numberStanding Order or Regulation or any special order issued to the deceased permitting him to make private earnings, had been produced.
The Tribunal allowed the application and awarded Rs 75,000.
Relying on the statistics furnished in the Works Development Report, 1985, this Court had been companysistently fixing the multiplier, by taking into account the average expectation of life in India at 55, and therefore, the multiplier therein is fixed at 13.
He was aged 42 at the time of accident.
The appellants in their claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claimed Rs 1 lakh as companypensation.
The claimants have challenged the judgment of the High Court in this appeal.
The unusual amount of Rs 5000 is added towards loss of expectation of life.
IA is allowed Special Leave granted.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The respondent Corporation went in appeal before the High Court against the order of the Tribunal.
Appellant 1, in the appeal herein, is the widow of the deceased and the other appellants are his children.
Arising out of SLP C No.
In Exh.
Hence, he would have provided Rs 65,520.
