The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier in cases where the deceased was a bachelor and died in a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

Both the appeals arise out of a common award dated 27.2.2018 passed by the learned 5th M.A.C.T., Khurda in M.A.C.T. Case No.7 of 2017. They were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.

2. Claimants-Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("M.V. Act") for compensation on account of accidental death of their son, Choudhury Harihar Gajendra Mohapatra. The case of the claimants was that on 24.12.2016 while Choudhury Harihar Gajendra Mohapatra was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing regd. No.OD-02-F-4855 from Pipili to State Bank of India, Nayahata Branch, via-Nimapara on the left side of the road. At about 10 A.M. a truck bearing regd. No.OD-07-J-7545 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which, he sustained severe bodily injuries and succumbed to death on the spot. The deceased was 30 years of old at the time of accident. He was working as Manager in the State Bank of India, Nayahata Branch, Gop and getting salary of Rs. 65,000/- per month. After his death, the family received a serious set back.

3. The owner of the vehicle, opposite party no.1, was set exparte. The insurer of the offending vehicle, opposite party no.2, appellant herein, entered contest and filed written statement pleading inter alia that the deceased was negligent in driving inasmuch as he was not wearing protective headgear as mandatory under Sec.129 of the M.V. Act. He died due to his own negligence and as such the insurer is exempted from its liability.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal struck four issues. To substantiate the case, the claimants had examined three witnesses and on their behalf fifteen documents had been exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. On an anatomy pleadings and evidence, learned Tribunal came to hold that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The offending vehicle was insured with opposite party no.2-insurer. The driver of the offending vehicle had valid licence at the time of accident. The deceased was 30 years 10 months of age at the time of accident. He was working as Manager in the State Bank of India, Nayahat Branch, Gop. Learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 80,31,168/- in the following manner.

Sl. No. Heads Calculation

(i) Monthly income after deduction of professional tax and Income tax. Rs.55,572/-

(ii) Annual income of the deceased. Rs.6,66,764/-

(iii) 50% of (ii) above to be added as future prospective. Rs.6,66,764/- + Rs. 3,33,382/- = Rs. 10,00,146/-

(iv) 50% of (iii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased per annum. Rs.10,00,146.00 Rs. 5,00,073.00 = Rs. 5,00,073/-

(v) Annual contribution to family after 50% addition as future prospects and 50% deduction as personal expenses. Rs.5,00,073/-

(vi) Compensation after application of multiplier 16. Rs.5,00,073/- X 16 = Rs. 80,01,168/-

(vii) Addition of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. Rs.80,01,168/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 80,16,168/-

(viii) Addition of Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Rs.80,16,168/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 80,31,168/-

5. The insurer has assailed the award in MACA No.570 of 2018, whereas the claimants filed MACA No.640 of 2018 for enhancement of compensation amount.

6. Heard Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company and Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned Advocate for the claimants-respondent nos.1 and 2.

7. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the insurer, submitted that the deceased was negligent in driving. He had not put headgear as manadatory under Sec.129 of the M.V. Act. The insurer is exempted from its liability. His alternative submission was that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal fell into patent error of law in applying multiplier 16' taking into account the age of the deceased, instead of parents. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance on the decisi