JUDGMENT

B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. — Both the appeals have been directed by the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company, Balasore against the judgment dated 19.01.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Bhadrak in M.A.C. No. 97 of 2003 an M.A.C. No. 120 of 2003. M.A.C. No. 97 of 2003 was filed by the mother of the deceased whereas M.A.C. No. 120 of 2003 was filed by the wife and the minor children of the deceased Narendra Jena, who died in a vehicular accident which took place on 19.11.2003 for grant of compensation under the provisions of MV Act, 1988.

2.The case of the claimants in both the cases is that on 19.11.2003 at about 8 PM while the deceased was standing on the left side of Bhadrak-Basudevpur road near Andrei Bazar, the offending bus bearing registration No.OR-01-7383, namely, “Jaga-Kalia” being driven by the driver Ranjan Kumar Das in a rash and negligent manner came in high speed and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries on his leg, head and penis. Immediately, the injured was taken to District Headquarters Hospital, Bhadrak where he succumbed to the injuries. According to claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by engaging himself as a mason and contributing Rs.2,000/- towards family maintenance. In this connection Bhadrak (R) Police registered Bhadrak (R) PS Case No. 253 (13)/03 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1218/03 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak. After completion of the investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet under Sections 279, 304 (A), IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. With these averments, the claimants filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal claiming compensation under the M.V. Act.

3.The opp. Parties have appeared and filed their written statements. O.P. No.2-Insurance Company denied the averments made in the claim petition. Opp. Party No.1 stated in the written statement that the accident took place due to contributory negligence and there was no fault of the driver. The vehicle had valid insurance policy and the driver had valid driving licence and also he tested his driving licence. They had no knowledge about fake driving licence, if any. They have seen the driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Chandikhol and tested the driver’s, driving and on finding him fit he was allowed to drive the vehicle. He was engaged as driver one year before the date of accident. In such situation, respondent-owner is not liable to pay the compensation.

4.On the rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following three issues:-

(i)Is there any cause of action and is the case maintainable?

(ii)Whether Chagulu @ Narendra Jena died in a vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. OR-01-7383 on 19.11.2003 at Andrei bazar ?

(iii)Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation, and if so, from whom and to what extent ?

5.After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, learned Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Ranjan Kumar Das of the offending vehicle causing injuries and death of the deceased. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants have lost the contribution of income of the deceased to the family, his love and affection, and future dependency. The offending vehicle was validly insured with O.P. No.2 and at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 33 years. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.50/- per day. Deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenditure and applying multiplier of 17, the amount of compensation was assessed at Rs.2,04,000/-. Further, adding Rs.9,500/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation was determined at Rs.2,13,500/-.

6.With regard to the validity of the driving licence the learned Tribunal held that the seizure list reveals that D.L.