The proper application of suitable multiplier in claim cases, as established in the Sarla Verma judgment, is crucial in determining the awarded compensation.

Subhasis Dasgupta, J.

This appeal emerges out of the judgment and order dated 30th September, 2013, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Midnapore awarding compensation to the tune of Rr.3,0,2000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filling of claim petition till realisation of entire awarded sum.

2. Tribunal Judge elaborately dealt with factual circumstances in details while granting the award, however, for the sake of decision in this appeal some crucial facts may be adhered to. A Kolkata bound Ambassador car due to its rash and negligent driving snatched away the live of a 15 years old boy pursuing study in class seven of a school causing a road traffic accident on 27.05.10 at about 1.30 PM on NH-6 when victim boy was coming towards Medinapore from Debra side along left side of NH-6 being accompanied by some of his family members. Deceased victim suffered injuries at the lower portion of his body for which he was first taken to Debra Hospital to secure medical attention and ultimately sent to Medinapore Medical College and Hospital and on the way he suffered death.

3. The award granted is the subject matter of challenge in this case what was alleged to be erroneous by the appellant/insurance company for the wrong selection of suitable multiplier, which was solitarily stressed only. This seems to be the one and only ground of challenge simplicitor.

4. The claimants/respondents without filing any cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC however, contended that the award would have been much more than that of the amount originally awarded, as the learned Tribunal Judge did not ascertain the just compensation on other conventional grounds like loss of estate, funeral expenses etc. available to claimants/parents/respondents.

5. Admittedly there was no challenge at the behest of the insurance company that claim application was not maintainable and further the offending vehicle had no coverage of insurance at the date and time of accident. Presumably the respondents/claimants accepted the quantum of award in the absence of cross-objection being filed.

6. It is evident in this case that claimants/respondents examined two witnesses, out of which PW1 is the mother of the deceased son, and PW 2 is a eye witness to the incident.

7. The appellant/insurance company on the contrary examined no witnesses for the evasive denial having taken in its written statement.

8. On a carefully analysis of the evidence adduced by the claimants the involvement of the offending vehicle leading to the death of the deceased was successfully established, which received further support from the FIR, Exbt-1, Charge-sheet, Exbt-2. The standard of proof required for proving a claim application is not that of beyond reasonable doubt, but the Court should follow the principles of preponderance of probability. Upon applying the same principle, the Tribunal rightly held the offending vehicle to be involved in the accident causing the death of a boy due it its rash and negligent driving.

9. Each of the circumstances relied on by the Tribunal pertaining to the determination of the issues framed in this case is germane to the ultimate conclusion that the deceased victim, a minor, suffered death receiving fatal injuries on his person in consequence of road traffic accident, caused by the offending vehicle, due to its rash and negligent driving. There left no evidence to believe that a false and fabricated case was set up for the desired purpose of claimants fabricating some police papers. Admittedly a criminal prosecution was lodged over the accident now under consideration, which ended in charge-sheet under Section 279/304A IPC after due police investigation, and the same went uncontroverted by the insurance company before the Tribunal.

10. Relying upon the decisions of Apex Court, Tribunal proceeded to determine the income, age and the loss of dependency of claimants and awarded the sum upon selection of a multiplier considering