BISHWANATH PRASAD Vs. MAHENDRA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 04.02.2011 of the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.46 of 2006 whereby Rs.1,96,500/-was awarded as compensation to the claimants and the respondent-the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was saddled with the liability to pay 50% of the said amount i.e. Rs.98,250/- with interest @ 6% per annum payable from 18.11.2008.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall has submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate that AW-2, the maternal uncle of the deceased, has deposed that he was travelling on the front seat of the Mahendra Savari vehicle and the deceased was seated on the rear seat. That since the road was in a bad condition, he repeatedly asked the driver to drive carefully but the driver did not pay any heed and kept driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. That the vehicle suffered a jolt and the deceased and one co-passenger Vinay Kumar lost their balance and fell down on the road and died on account of being run over by the truck which was coming from behind.

(3.) It is submitted that the police investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet against the driver of Mahindra Savari vehicle, bearing registration No. JHOIL 7807. It is argued that in view of deposition of AW-2 and the charge-sheet, it is amply clear that the deceased and a co-passenger fell down from the vehicle due to the jolt as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Mehendra Savari vehicle. It is canvassed that considering the material evidence on record, no case of composite negligence is made out. Therefore, the liability to pay the entire compensation should be fastened upon respondent No.2-New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of Mahendra Savari vehicle. Learned counsel has contended that the court below has erred in computing the compensation by applying the multiplier on the basis of the age of the claimant without appreciating the well settled proposition that the age of the deceased is the reckoning factor for applying the multiplier.