The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier in cases of motor vehicle accidents, and parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

1. This is a claimants' appeal for enhancement of the award.

2. The claimants-appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) before the Fifth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nayagarh for compensation.

The case of the claimants was that on 18.1.2009 their son Ranjan @ Laxmidhar Santa was travelling in a bus bearing registration no. OR-02-AF-3675. On the way in between Rajasunakhala and Badapandusara, the bus met with an accident near Dighiri Dhaba, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. While he was taken to the District Headquarters Hospital, Nayagarh for treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. It was pleaded that the deceased was a bachelor. He was 25 years old at the time of accident. He was a mason and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month.

3. Opposite party no. 1-respondent no. 2, owner of the vehicle filed written statement, but subsequently he was set ex parte. Opposite party no. 2-respondent no. 1, insurer of the vehicle entered contest and filed written statement denying its liability.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal struck three issues. To substantiate the case, the claimants had examined two witnesses and on their behalf, ten documents had been exhibited. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence on record, learned Tribunal came to hold that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the accident occurred. It assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/-. Taking into the age of the parents, it applied multiplier 8 and awarded an amount of Rs. 2,02,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

5. Heard Mr. B. Sahoo, learned Advocate for the appellants and Ms. Rimjhim Pati on behalf of Mr. S. Ray, learned Advocate for respondent no. 1. None appears for respondent no. 2.

6. Criticizing the award, Mr. Sahoo, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the deceased was a bachelor. Learned Tribunal committed a manifest illegality in applying the multiplier 8 taking into the age of the parents, instead of age of the deceased. He further submits that the learned Tribunal fell into patent error in not awarding towards filial consortium.

7. Per contra, Ms. Pati, learned Advocate for respondent no. 1 submits that learned Tribunal is justified in taking into account the age of the parents, since the deceased was a bachelor. Furthermore, the award amount has been disbursed to the claimants.

8. The question that falls for consideration is when a bachelor died in a motor vehicle accident whether age of the parents shall be taken into account or his age for the purpose of choosing multiplier?

9. The subject matter of dispute is no more res integra. This Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Emerenciana Soy and Others, MACA No. 955 of 2016 disposed of on 6.2.2019, held:

"8. There are divergent views of the apex Court as well as different High Courts with regard to application of multiplier in a case where the deceased was a bachelor and died in a motor vehicle accident. The same has been set at rest by the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The apex Court held:

"59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment.

59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

xxx xxx xxx

(Emphasis laid)

9. An identical matter came up for consideration before the apex Court in the case of Nagar Mal. In the said case, the deceased was a bachelor. A contention was raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the multiplier to be adopted should have been based on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the parents.