CHHAKEI SETHI Vs. NARESH CHANDRA SAHOO AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the claimant -appellants against the judgment dated 08.01.2010 passed by the Court of the 1st Addl. District Judge -cum -1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MAC No. 113 of 2006. The case of the claimant -appellants before the learned Tribunal was that on 10.03.2006 on Narasinghpur -Kamaladiha road near Regeda (Daluabanka) three passengers namely, Krushna Mukhi, Santosh Sethi and Kishore Mukhi died in a vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. OR -05 -T -1645. The deceased persons were traveling as passengers at the relevant time of accident in the offending vehicle which was plying from Panchama towards Zillinda side and the driver was driving it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he lost control over the vehicle and it capsized. In the said accident the deceased persons sustained injuries. Soon after the accident, they were taken to the nearest hospital, but the concerned doctor declared them dead. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the concerned police and accordingly Narasinghpur P.S. Case No. 26 of 2006 was registered and then investigation was carried on. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer seized the documents of the offending vehicle and the DL of the driver. The Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet with the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent in his driving. Further case of the claimants is that the deceased was a laundry owner and his monthly income was Rs. 4,000/ -. At the time of death, the deceased was a bachelor and he was 22 years. With these averments, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/ -.

(2.) BEFORE the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle was set ex parte. Opposite party No. 2 -Insurance Company contested the case by stating that the deceased was not traveling in the said vehicle at the relevant time of accident and it was a cooked up story. It was further pleaded in the written statement that the offending vehicle was not insured under it. Therefore, question of indemnifying the compensation amount does not arise. It was alternatively argued that the amount of compensation is high and excessive.

(3.) LEARNED Tribunal has assessed the annual notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/ - and by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying multiplier 13 taking age of the father of the deceased as 48 years determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 1,30,000/ - (rupees one lakh thirty thousand). Further a sum of Rs. 4500/ - was also awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium. Accordingly, the claimants were awarded Rs. 1,34,500/ - as compensation. The learned Tribunal directed the opposite party No. 2 -Insurance Company to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation of Rs. 1,34,500/ - alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum w.e.f. 05.04.2006 till the date of payment with right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Learned Tribunal also directed to keep a portion of the said amount in fixed deposit in the name of the claimants.