DHANIRAJ Vs. MANORAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Owner is the appellant in these two appeals under S.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) QRU 1785, a truck, was involved in an accident on 30th Aug., 1979. Sriram Sharma and Sesh Mohan Dash were occupants in the vehicle at the time of accident and sustained fatal injuries on that account. Dependants of deceased Sriram Sharma filed one claim petition and the dependants of deceased Sesh Mohan Dash filed another claim petition. Bath the claim petitions were heard together and the tribunal has found that the accident was on account of negligent driving of the vehicle as a result of which both the two deceased persons sustained fatal injuries to succumb on the spot. Just compensation to the dependants of deceased Sesh Mohan Dash was determined at Rs. 60,000/- and the same in respect of dependants of deceased Sriram Sharma was Rs. 35,000/-. In both the cases the insurer was made liable up to the statutory limit.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Bose, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the; award of Rs. 60,000/- to the dependants of deceased Seshmohan Dash by applying the principle of 15 times multiplier of purchaser is unjust since the deceased aged about 46 years was a Sub-Inspector of Police getting a monthly salary of Rs. 800/- and his dependants are getting family pension under the State Government Rules. Tribunal adopting the method of multiplier of years' purchase has come to the conclusion that the dependants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 90,000.00/-. However, on account of benefits available, he reduced it to Rs. 60,000/- which he determined as the just compensation. Application of the method of multiplier is a well accepted principle. If at all the claimants could have made a grievance owner in this case should not be permitted to make a grievance of the same. While considering the actual loss of dependency, the normal longevity of a person at Seventy years is to be kept in mind. The family pension as per the rules is also reducible. A Sub-Inspector of Police had chance of promotion and there was also chance of escalation of pay and allowances during his service career. His liability would have continued till his death in respect of some of the claimants. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the determination of the just compensation.