THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2874 of 2003 Date:18.11.2010 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ..... Appellant AND Sasam Krishna Kumari and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri R. Brizmohan Singh Counsel for Respondents: Sri N. Siva Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the award dated 15.03.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.549 of 1999 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Kakinada (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Respondent No.3 in the M.V.O.P. filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3. The deceased, a railway police constable, was the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3, who died in a motor accident. In the M.V.O.P. filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- the Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,00,000/-. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has advanced the only submission, namely, that the Tribunal has erroneously relied on the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for applying the relevant multiplier. While technically the learned counsel is right in advancing his contention, there shall be no material change in the result of the case in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], wherein the Apex Court, after considering the judgments in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas[2], UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra[3] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie[4], has standardised various parameters for computation of compensation. The multiplier is one such parameter, according to which, if the deceased is aged between 46 and 50 years, the relevant multiplier is ‘13’. Unwittingly, the Tribunal has taken the same multiplier by placing reliance on the Second Schedule. Therefore, the said multiplier being in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court, the award of the Tribunal in this regard is not liable for interference. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the C.M.A., interim orders dated 06.08.2003 and 26.03.2004 passed in C.M.A.M.P.No.17229 of 2003 and C.M.A.M.P.No.2599 of 2004 respectively are vacated and C.M.A.M.P.Nos.17229 of 2003 and 2599 of 2004 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th November, 2010 GHN [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC) [2] 1994(2) SCC 176 [3] 1996(4)SCC 362 = 1996(4) ALD (SCSN) [4] 2005 (10) SCC 720