IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) At the stage of appeal, all questions of fact and law decided by Tribunal are open for reconsideration.
(2) In case deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, addition of 40% of established income should be awarded where deceased was below age of 40 years.

JUDGMENT :

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in MACA No.965 of 2016 whereby the High Court has reduced the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants from Rs.22,60,000/- to Rs.17,00,000/-.

3. The first appellant is the wife of one Manoj Kumar Biswal and the second and third appellants are their minor sons. Manoj Kumar Biswal died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 09.05.2013. The appellants filed claim petition bearing MAC No.46/2013 before the Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Talcher District (for short ‘the Tribunal’), seeking compensation on account of the death of Manoj Kumar Biswal. The first respondent, owner of the offending truck, filed his written statement denying any negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck. Respondent no.2 is the insurer who also filed the written statement opposing the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the materials on record, held that the cause for the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,90,064/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The claimants as well as the insurer challenged the award of the Tribunal before the High Court vide MACA Nos.1134 and 1169 of 2014. The High Court set aside the award and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. The Tribunal once again considered the matter and awarded a total compensation of Rs.22,60,000/-. The insurer challenged the award of the Tribunal before the High Court by filing an appeal bearing MACA No.965 of 2016. In that appeal, the High Court has modified the award of the Tribunal and awarded compensation of Rs.17,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per year from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the High Court was not justified in reducing the compensation without assigning any reason. It is contended that the appellant was earning Rs.15,000/-and was aged about 28 years at the time of his death. The Courts below have taken his age as 33 years and has applied multiplier ‘16’ instead of ‘15’. It is further argued that the deceased had a permanent job. The Courts below have not awarded any compensation towards loss of future prospects. Even the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is not in accordance with the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 .

6. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-insurer has supported the judgment of the High Court.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

8. The finding of the Tribunal and that of the High Court with regard to the cause of the accident and the liability of the insurer to pay compensation is not disputed. Therefore, the only question for consideration is whether compensation awarded by the High Court is adequate.

9. The deceased was working as supervisor under one Kusha Samal (PW-3), proprietor of M/s. Divine Construction. Exhibit P-8 is certificate issued by PW3 shows that the deceased was a supervisor in the organisation and his salary was Rs.15,000/- per month. In his evidence, PW-3 has also stated that the deceased was paid salary of Rs.15,000/-per month. The first appellant-wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1. She has stated that the income of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.15,000/-per month. Taking into account the evidence on record, the Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs.15,000/-. We do not find any error with the assessment of the salary as such by the Tribunal.

10. Though the appellants claim tha