JUDGMENT

S.K. MISHRA, J. - This judgment arises out of two separate appeals, one preferred by the National Insurance Company Ltd., which was opposite party no.2 in Misc. Case No. 808 of 1995 of the Court of Second M.A.C.T., Cuttack and the second M.A.C.A. No. 347 of 2014 is preferred by the claimants. The claimants mainly challenged the award passed by the learned M.A.C.T. on 08.05.2013 in the aforesaid case awarding a sum of Rs. 1,34,300/- with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Insurance Company has challenged the entire award on the various grounds, which are discussed in the following paragraphs:

2. The case of the appellants is that on 11.10.1992 at about 1.00 A.M. (night) while the deceased was travelling as an occupant in the offending tourist Bus bearing Regn. No. OSP-739, on the way near Gopalpur, Cuttack the deceased requested the driver to stop the vehicle to pass urine and driver of the Bus stopped the vehicle and after passing urine when the deceased about to get into the Bus, the driver started moving the Bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which , the deceased fell down on the ground and the wheel of the Bus ran over him inflicting severe injuries on his person and was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, where he succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the accident took place due to gross negligence of the driver of the offending Bus. The deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and he was working as a Mason and was earning Rs. 1500/- per month. Basing on such plea, the claimants have filed a case claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Respondent No.3 in the first case and Respondent No.1 in the second case, i.e. the registered owner of the Bus, however, did not contest the case and has been set ex parte.

3. National Insurance Company, the Appellant in first case and Respondent No. 2 in the second case, has contested the case and filed written statement evasively denying the averments made in the claim petition. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Insurance Company gave much stress on the proof of insurance coverage. However, it is seen at column Nos. 14 to 16 of the claim application, the claimants have clearly mentioned that the vehicle was covered under the Policy bearing No. 322/92, which was valid from 02.09.1992 to 02.09.1993. The Insurance Company at paragraph 11 of the written statement has taken an evasive denial. It is appropriate to quote said paragraph:

“11. That with reference to the statements contained in column Nos. 14 to 16 of the claim application, this opp.party disputes the statements having no knowledge about the accident and alleged ownership of the alleged offending vehicle. This opp.party does not admit at this stage, if he had issued policy No. 322/92 valid from 2.9.92 to 2.9.93 as alleged covering the interest of the owner of the vehicle No. O.S.P. 7539 Tourist Bus.”

4. On the basis of such plea, the learned Tribunal framed four issues including maintainability and to what relief the petitioner is entitled to. As far as Issues 1 and 2 are concerned, the learned Tribunal has decided that the claim application is maintainable and the deceased has sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. OSP-7539 (Bus) and the issues are answered in favour of the petitioner. While deciding issues 3 and 4, the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 1200/- and the contribution to the family to be Rs. 800/- per month and also adopted multiplier of thirteen and accordingly calculated the total loss to the claimants due to the death of the deceased to be Rs. 1,24,800/-. In addition to it, Rs. 9,500/- has been awarded for funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. In total, an amount of Rs. 1,34,300/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants and opposite party n