DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL Vs. KALANDI CHARAN JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this case was listed for admission, on request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for hearing and disposal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 7.10.1999 passed by the Third M.A.C.T., Puri in MACT Misc. Case No. 2097/111 of 1992/1991 directing payment of compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/ - with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment.

(2.) CLAIMANTS -respondents are the legal heirs of deceased Kishore Chandra Jena. Case of the claimants is that on 9.12.1990 at about 5 p.m. when the deceased was going to market for purchasing vegetables in his cycle, the offending bus bearing registration No. ORP -5627 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him from behind, as a result of which the deceased was thrown to a distance of ten feet and fell on the road and thereafter the offending bus ran over him causing the death. Further case of the claimants -respondents is that the deceased was 21 years of age and was earning Rs. 1500/ - per month working as a Peon in M/s. Swain Associates, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar and was contributing Rs. 1100/ - per month to his family. Owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement denying direct knowledge about the accident resulting in death of the deceased. However, he stated that the vehicle had been validly insured with the present appellant. The present appellant also filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition as well as the income of the deceased. The Tribunal on analysis of evidence framed five issues and with reference to the evidence adduced it held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle resulting in death of the deceased. Accepting the income of the deceased at the time of accident as Rs. 1500/ - per month, the Tribunal applying 17 multiplier allowed compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/ -.

(3.) ON perusal of the evidence adduced before the trial Court, I find that the claimants' witnesses are consistent in their statement that the deceased was working as Peon in a private firm and was earning salary of Rs. 1500/ - per month. There is nothing in the cross -examination to disbelieve these witnesses. The appellant has also not adduced any rebuttal evidence to come to a different finding. I, therefore, agree with the Tribunal that the deceased was getting Rs. 1500/ - per month as salary. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure the contribution to the family is Rs. 1000/ - per month. Coming to the question of multiplier it is admitted that the father of the deceased was 48 years of age and mother of the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of death of the deceased. Taking average age of the parents at 44 years, the appropriate multiplier will be 15. Applying 15 multiplier, compensation comes to Rs. 1,80,000/ -. So far as interest is concerned, in view of the recent decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, rate of interest at 12% per annum granted by the Tribunal is reduced to 7.5% per annum.