Court clarified the appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation and addressed issues of age and delay in filing, impacting the final award.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and also counsel appearing for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability as well as quantum passed vide order dated 04.11.2024 in MVC No.952/2023 by the court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kalaburagi (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

3. The factual matrix of the case of claimants before the Tribunal that on 01.06.2023, their mother Deepali W/o Budhappa Waghmare was proceeding as a pillion rider along with her relative – respondent No.1 in a motorcycle. When they returning near Mahila Hospital, Mangalvedha Huljanti road, respondent No.1 rode the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the buffalo, due to which deceased Deepali fell down and sustained grievous injuries on her head. At the first instance, she was taken to the hospital to Mahila Hospital, Mangalvedha and thereafter she was taken to CNS Hospital, Solapur for higher treatment. Due to accidental injuries, she passed away on 06.06.2023. Hence, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal by the children who are the claimants. Tribunal having considered the material available on record particularly considering the age of deceased at 35 years, added 40% of future prospects and awarded compensation in all to the tune of Rs.29,47,928/- and liability was fixed on both respondent Nos.1 and 2 and directed respondent No.2–Insurer to pay the said amount.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

5. The main contention of appellant/Insurance Company that the first claimant is aged about 21 years, who is son of deceased and the age of deceased shown in the post mortem is 35 years cannot be accepted and having added 40% of the future prospects and also applying of multiplier ‘16’ is not correct.

6. The other ground of argument of the Insurance Company is that the accident had taken place on 01.06.2023 and complaint was filed on 10.06.2023. There is a delay and same has not been explained. It is clear case of false implication of the vehicle. Fixing the liability on the Insurance Company is also erroneous and the Tribunal has not taken note of the said fact into consideration.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would vehemently contend that deceased was a mother of claimants and the very contention that she is aged more than 40 years cannot be accepted and there is no material. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the document at Ex.P.28- Medico-Legal Case (MLC) is produced before the Tribunal and it clearly discloses that within a span of two hours of the accident, MLC No.2236 was sent to the police station on 01.06.2023 at 7.00 p.m. and accident had taken place at 5.30 p.m. and hence, the very contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. There was no delay, but police intimation was given on the very same day.

8. The counsel also vehemently contend that the Tribunal taken note of the material available on record and passed the appropriate award and it does not requires any interference.

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for respondents/ claimants and also considering the grounds which have been urged in the appeal and during the course of arguments, the points that would arise for consideration are :

i) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in awarding exorbitant compensation as contended by the appella