JUDGMENT :

RABINDRANATH SAMANTA, J.

1. Assailing the compensation awarded by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short tribunal), 3rd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in MACC No. 2013 of 2021 as inadequate compensation, the claimants - Sangita Chakladar, Rita Chakladar (Biswas) and Khantabala Chakladar - have preferred the instant appeal. By the impugned award dated March 4, 2021 the learned tribunal directed the United India Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 46,33,168/- as compensation to the claimants.

2. It may be noted herein that during pendency of the appeal, the third appellant - Khantabala Chakladar, the mother of the deceased - expired and on her demise the claimant no. 1, Sangita Chakladar, has been treated as her legal heir.

3. The background facts which led the filing of the claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which are necessary for adjudication may be summarized as follows.

4. On June 14, 2016 at about 7.30 a.m. Santi Ranjan Chakladar of Jagadanandapur, Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara, district Nadia along with his nephew was proceeding towards Bethuadahari Bazar. At that time, a lorry bearing No. W.B.89/1237, which was proceeding towards Krishnagar in rash and negligent manner dashed both of them and as a result of which, both of them sustained severe injuries of their person and died on the spot. The deceased Santiranjan Chakladar was a BSF constable under the Commandant 68 BN BSF, Dabla, Jaisalmer in Rajasthan. Before his death, he used to earn Rs. 34,000/- per month. The victim died at the age of 34 years.

5. On the allegations of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, one Nakashipara P.S. Case No. 432 of 2016 dated June 14, 2016 under sections 279/304 IPC was registered against him for investigation.

6. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was registered with the United India Insurance Company, the respondent no. 1 herein.

7. The claimant nos.1 and 2 are the daughter and widow of the deceased and the claimant no. 3, Khantabala Chakladar, since deceased, was his mother. The victim was the only bread-earner of his family. Owing to his sudden and untimely demise, the family members of him fell in intense financial distress.

8. On the facts as above, the claimants sought for total compensation of Rs. 69,45,602/-.

9. Upon hearing learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and on assessment of evidence on record, the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim application and awarded the compensation as indicated above.

10. What I find from the impugned judgement, the learned tribunal, on assessment of the evidence on record, has recorded finding that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident took place and the deceased, Santiranjan Chakladar, lost his life because of the accident. However, on analysing the evidence on record, I do not find any reason to differ with the finding as recorded by the learned tribunal. In view of these facts and since the insurance company has not preferred any cross-objection, it stands proved that due to rash and negligence driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred and the deceased died of the accident.

11. As I find from the impugned award, the learned tribunal has held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 33,663/-. Such assessment of monthly income by the learned tribunal is not disputed on the part of the insurance company. Perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned tribunal assessed the compensation by adopting multiplier 17. But it is the fact that the victim died at the age of 34 years.

12. As mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para-42 of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation India Limited, (2009) 6 SCC 621, the multiplier 1