IMPORTANT POINT
If by applying the tests and guidelines, overall award of compensation is just and fair, then, such award deserves to be upheld in claimants’ favour.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) C.A. No. 3862 of 2013 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.(for short, “the Insurance Company”) and C.A. Nos. 3863-3864 of 2013 are filed by the claimants. These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 21.09.2012 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in M.A.C.A. No.1 of 2012 and M.A.C.A. No. 62 of 2012 whereby the High Court partly allowed M.A.C.A. No.1 of 2012 filed by the Insurance Company and, in consequence, dismissed M.A.C.A. No.62 of 2012 filed by the claimants.

2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief infra.

3) On 16.12.2006, one Mathurananda Nayak, a resident of U.S.A., and his mother Jita Nayak along with two others while coming from Cuttack side towards Aredi on NH No. 5 by a car bearing Registration No. OR-02-S-0565, collided with a truck bearing Registration No. OR-09-E-6357 driven by its driver which was coming from Paniloili side. As a result of the said accident, Mathurananda Nayak, Jita Nayak along with driver of the car sustained injuries and later succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

4) The claimants in this appeal are wife and sons of the deceased Mathurandanda Nayak, who was aged about 36 years at the time of accident. He was working as a Senior Information System Analyst under Traci Cagle Human Resource Representative a Xilinx Inc-2100 Logic Drive San Jose, CA-95124, U.S.A. and was earning $97,080,60 per annum by way of salary. He had come to India for few days when unfortunately he met with an accident and died.

5) The legal heirs of the deceased filed two separate claim applications for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Cuttack (for short, “the Tribunal”) being MAC No. 25 of 2007 (filed by legal heirs of Mathurananda Nayak) and MAC No. 30 of 2007 (filed by the legal heirs of Jita Nayak) against the owner of the vehicle and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. being the insurer of the truck.

6) The owner of the insured vehicle did not appear in spite of service and the applications were proceeded ex-parte.

7) By a common Award dated 25.10.2011 in MCA No. 25 of 2007, the Tribunal allowed the applications. So far as M.C.A. No.25 of 2007 was concerned, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver, that the deceased was aged 36 years, that annual income of the deceased was Rs.43,68,624/-(in Indian currency by applying the exchange rate of Rs.45/-per dollar). The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 15 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and adding therein some amount towards conventional heads, awarded a total sum of Rs.4,36,95,740/-to the claimants and accordingly directed the Insurance Company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application.

8) So far as MCA No. 30 of 2007 was concerned, the Tribunal, by applying the multiplier of 5, awarded a sum of Rs.1,29,500/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. for the death of Jita Nayak.

9) Challenging the said award, the Insurance Company filed MACA No.1 of 2012 before the High Court and the claimants filed MACA No.62 of 2012 for enhancement of compensation amount awarded to them by the Tribunal.

10) By impugned common judgment dated 21.09.2012, the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and reduced the compensation amount of Rs.4,36,95,740/-, which was awarded by the Tribunal, to Rs.3,75,00,000/-. It was held that the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased but did not deduct anything towards income tax from the salary. The High Court, therefore, interfered with the determination made by the Tribunal and accordingly re-worked the compensation and reduced it to Rs.3,75,00,000/-. All other findin