Hon'ble AGARWAL, J.—Two appeals M.A. No. 723/2003 and M.A. No. 935/2003 have been preferred against the award dated 28.6.203 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 30/2001, one by the National Insurance Company Limited challenging its liability for payment of compensation, the other is by the claimants seeking enhancement in the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by the common award.

2. On 25.7.2001, Shyam Ram Nirmalkar, driver of bus bearing registration No. MBS/1493 was dashed by truck bearing registration No. A.S./01/6116 being drive by driver Umesh Rai in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which, Shyam Ram Nirmalkar died on spot.

3. As against Rs. 19,80,00/- claimed by legal representatives of deceased Shyam Ram Nirmalkar as compensation for the death of their bread earner by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (briefly 'the Act'), learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,91,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment, holding the national Insurance Company Limited jointly and severely liable for its payment to the claimants, along with driver and owner of the offending truck.

4. In order to examine the correctness or otherwise of the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal, we have perused the record of the Tribunal.

5. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led assessed yearly income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd of it towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 16 looking to he age of the deceased 40 years, assessed he amount of compensation as Rs. 3,84,000/-. Learned Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 7,00/- on other heads and thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,91,000/- as compensation to the claimants.

6. In the absence of cogent and clinching evidence, the finding regarding yearly income of the deceased cannot be found fault with. Learned Tribunal has also not erred in deducting usual 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. The deceased was of the age of 40 years. Looking to the dicta of judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009(6) SCC 621 wherein multiplier of 15 is prescribed for the age group of 36 to 40 years, multiplier or 16 applied by learned Tribunal appears to be somewhat on higher side. Considering every aspect of the matter, in our opinion, he amount awarded is just and reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement.

7. The core question therefore involved for decision making in these appeals is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal has erred in fastening liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company.

8. The main contention raised by Shri B.N. Nande, learned counsel for the Insurance Company is, learned Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting application of Insurance Co. field under Order 26, Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure for issuance of commission of reexamination of officer/employee of D.T.O. Kamrup, Gauhati (West Zone) as according to him, the licence of the truck driver on investigation was found fake and by rejecting the application, learned Tribunal has deprived the appellant/Insurance Company to prove its defence and the award impugned deserves to be set aside on this count alone.

9. In order to appreciate the contention raised by Shri Nande, it would be appropriate to reproduce Order 16, Rule 19 and Order 26, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure which read thus :

"Order 16 Rule 19 — No witness to be ordered to attend in person unless resident within certain limits.

No one shall be ordered to attend in person to give evidence unless he resides —

(a) within the local limits of the Court's ordinary original jurisdiction, or

(b) without such limits but at a place less than

Click Here to Read the rest of this document