JUDGMENT

B. N. MAHAPATRA, J. — This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award dated 18.9.2006 passed in Misc. Case No.623 of 2003 by the 1st Addl. District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack.

2. The case of the claimant-petitioners is that on 02.07.2003 at about 7 P.M. while the deceased was travelling in a motorcycle from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack a truck bearing registra¬tion No.OAC-6786 came from Bhubaneswar side and dashed his motorcycle on N.H. 5 as a result of which the deceased sustained severe injury. Immediately thereafter the deceased was taken to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, in an unconscious stage. Then he was shifted to Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where he succumbed to injury. The claimant’s case was that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. Being Superintendent of Excise, the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and contributing Rs.20,000/- to run his family. At the time of accident the de¬ceased was 44 years old.

3. On the above facts, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehi¬cle holding them liable jointly and severally for untimely death of the deceased on road traffic accident. Opposite party No.1-the owner of the vehicle appeared before the learned Tribunal. He submitted his written statement and admitted the fact of acci¬dent, but denied rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. He contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants was high. However, subsequently, opposite party No.1 did not contest the case for which he was set ex parte. Opposite party No.2-Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited resisted the claim and denied the allegation in toto. The stand taken by the opposite party No.2 was that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. The further case of opposite party No.2 was that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. Opposite party No.2 also pleaded that the compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessively high in comparison to the age, profession, income and financial status of the deceased. Learned Tribunal allowed the opposite party No.2-Insurance Company to take defence in all aspects as provided under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the owner of the vehicle did not contest the case.

4. On the above pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal has framed four issues. The petitioners examined two witnesses and also filed certain documents marked as Exts. 1 to 8/1 in support of their claim. Opposite party No.1 examined one witness. Six documents marked as Exts. A, A/1, B, B/1, C and C/1 were admitted into evidence on behalf of opposite parties. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the deceased met with a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned Tribunal keeping in mind the spirit and manner in which the motor accident claim cases are disposed of in Lok Adalat, applied 12 multiplier and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.7,78,000/-. Besides this, Rs.9,500/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus the total compensation amounting to Rs.7,77,600/- was awarded with 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of application till realization. Learned Tribunal further directed that out of the awarded compensation, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate interest in favour of Riba Paikaray petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,25,000/- in favour of Pramod Nayak petitioner No.3 would be kept in shape of unencum¬berable fixed deposit in their respective name in any national¬ized bank for a period of six years. It further directed that interest accrued on such fixed deposit was payable to those claim¬ants on quarter