PAMPA BANIK Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of claimants in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 31st January, 2008, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalpaiguri, in M. A. C. Case No. 102 of 2007 thereby disposing of the said proceeding by awarding a sum of Rs. 8,90,000/- in favour of the three claimants. described in award within two months form the date of the award with a stipulation that in default of payment of such amount within the said period, interest on the awarded sum would accrue at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim-application i. e. 23rd April, 2007 till the payment. Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal.

(2.) THE claimants are three in number. The appellant No. 1 is the widow, the appellant No. 2 is the mother and the appellant No. 3 is the father of the victim. According to the claimants, on 13th March, 2007 at about 7/7. 30 p. m. , the victim met with an accident involving the offending vehicle resulting in his death. According to the claimants, they were entitled to get Rs. 14,40,000/- by way of compensation. There is no dispute about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident resulting in the death of the victim and the fact that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle concerned, the death occurred. There is also no dispute that the offending vehicle was covered by the insurance of New India Assurance Company Ltd. The only dispute raised in this appeal is as regards the quantum of compensation. It appears from the income-tax return of the victim for assessment year 2006/2007 that at the material point of time, the victim had income of Rs. 1,20,200/- per annum from his jute and bakery business. The learned Tribunal below after deducting one-third from the said amount of of the victim's father and added a further sum of Rs. 9,500/- and thus, the amount of compensation arrived at the figure of Rs. 8,89,500/- which was made a round figure of Rs. 8,90,000/ -. According to Mr. Banik, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, there was no justification of using the multiplier of 11 on the basis of the age of the father of the victim because the father of the victim although figured as claimant No. 3 was not really an heir according to Hindu Succession Act. Mr. Banik contends that in this case the widow was aged 22 years whereas the mother was aged 45 years at the time of accident and, therefore, the Court below should have awarded compensation by applying the multiplier of 18 on the basis of age of the victim and the widow. Mr. Banik further submits that the Tribunal below should have awarded interest on the awarded sum irrespective of the fact whether there is default on the part of the Insurance Company in making payment within the time stipulated by award. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the award impugned and for enhancing the same on the basis of multiplier of 18 on the annual income of the victim.

(3.) IN view of importance of the question raised in this appeal as regards the fixation of multiplier in a case where one of the heirs is comparatively younger (22) while the other is relatively older (45) in this case, we requested Mr. K. K. Das, the learned advocate of this Court to assist us as amicus curiae. Court and one of a Division Bench of this Court indicating the views of the Courts as regards the fixation of multiplier in different sets of facts involved in those decisions. The sum and substance of the contention of Mr. Das was that in fixing the multiplier, the Court should take into consideration various surrounding circumstances including the extent of dependency, the rate of bank interest, the advantage of getting a lump sum at a time, the uncertainty of the lives of both the victim and the claimants even if the victim did not die of the accident, the possibility of the remarriage of the widow etc. But no decision was placed before us indicating the law relating to division of the compensation among the heirs and legal representatives having regard to the share each of the legal heirs inherit according to the law of intestate succession or on the face of direction given in the testamentary disposition of the victim if any.