JUDGMENT:-

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The claimants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Kandarp Naik, as the Appellants, have filed this appeal assailing the award dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Learned Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Angul in M.AC.T. Case No. 74 of 2002 seeking for enhancement of compensation from Rs.1,71,740 to Rs.4,00,000 along with interest @ 9% from the date of application & for direction to the insurance company Respondent No.2 to pay the amount.

2. The short fact of the case in hand is that Kandarpa Naik, the deceased, was traveling in a goods vehicle after purchasing 22 Nos. of goats from Riamal weekly market. After loading the same in a mini truck bearing registration No. OSD-1097, while returning to home the vehicle met with an accident on 27.3.2002, as a result of which he died at the spot. It is stated in the claim petition that due to the rash & negligent driving of the driver, the said vehicle dashed against a tree. At the time of accident, the deceased, Kandarpa Naik was 45 years of old & was earning Rs.8000 per month from the goat business. The vehicle in question was insured with Respondent No.2, which covers the date of accident & the driver was driving the vehicle having valid driving licence. Therefore, the claimants filed the application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000 (Rupees four lakhs) on account of the death of Kandarpa Naik.

3. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Learned Tribunal, owner of the vehicle, Respondent No.1 did not appear & was set exparte whereas the Insurance company- Respondent No.2 appeared & filed its written statement denying their knowledge regarding the accident & also specifically stated that the vehicle was not authorized to carry passengers, thereby, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

4. To the above contention, the claimants examined two witnesses & filed documents which have been marked as Exts. 1 to 4 whereas the insurance company though appeared & filed its written statement & contested the application, did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of its contention. That apart, the insurance company-Respondent had taken a specific plea that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the said vehicle & therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation.

5. On consideration of the same, Learned Tribunal framed as many as three issues to the following effect:

(i) Whether the road accident took place on 27.3.2002 at about 2:45 P.M. near village Khalipasi resulting in the death of deceased Kandarpa Naik on account of rash & negligent driving of the Mini truck bearing registration No. OSD-1091 (Tata-407) by its driver?

(ii) Whether the Petitioners are entitled to get any compensation? If so, from whom & to what extent?

iii) To what relief (s) the parties are entitled?"

6. The Tribunal held that due to the rash & negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. OSD-1097 the accident had occurred resulting in the death of deceased Kandarpa Naik & accordingly answered issue No.1. So far as issue Nos. 2 & 3 are concerned, it is stated that the insurer cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the Petitioners for the death of the deceased, rather the owner of the offending vehicle is to pay the compensation to the Petitioners for the death of the deceased. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, taking into account the age of the deceased as 46 year & applying multiplier 13 (thirteen) to the annual contribution to the Petitioners, it was decided that tile claimants are entitled to get Rs.1,71,740 from the owner of the vehicle.

7. Mr. A.S. Nandy, Learned Counsel for the claimants-Appellants while assailing the award of the Learned Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T., Angul strenuously urged that the finding arrived at by the Learned tribunal is absolutely based on no materials inasmuch as while determining the amount of compensation, the T