JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Both the appeals being arise out of the same judgment dated 06.07.2019 of the learned 2nd MACT, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 631 of 2013 wherein compensation to the tune of Rs. 68,74,000/- has been granted along with interest @ 7% per annum to the claimant from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 25.9.2013, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Bishnupriya Panda, the original claimant is the Appellant in MACA No. 502 of 2019 and the insurer has preferred MACA No. 1003 of 2019.

3. The deceased was a young girl aged about 21 years prosecuting her studies in 4th year MBBS at VSS Medical College and Hospital, Burla. On 27.7.2013 at around 6.30 P.M. when the deceased was going in TVS Scooty at Boreipali Chowk, Sambalpur, the offending Truck bearing Registration No. OR-09-C-5525 dashed it from the back side being driven in a rash and negligent manner causing death of the deceased while being shifted to the Hospital.

4. The claimant, the widow mother of the deceased, filed the application claiming compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs on account death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant and 18 nos. of documents were marked in evidence in support of the claim. No evidence was adduced from the side of the insurer or the owner.

5. Learned Tribunal upon adjudication directed for payment of compensation by the insurer to the tune of Rs. 68,74,000/- along with 7% interest to the claimant. The learned Tribunal for determining just compensation has assessed monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs. 50,000/- added with 40% of the same towards future prospects and applied ‘18’ multiplier.

6. The insurer challenges such assessment made by the learned Tribunal by contending before this Court that when the deceased was admittedly a non-earning person fixing her notional income at Rs. 50,000/- is against the principles enshrined in the M.V. Act, that too with addition of 40% future prospects. It is further submitted that besides entitlement of the claim for compensation, the alleged offending vehicle has been implanted, though was not involved in the accident, to manage grant of compensation under the M.V. Act.

7. The original claimant while pursuing the appeal has prayed for enhancement of the compensation by taking monthly notional income of the deceased at rupees one lakh instead of Rs. 50,000/- calculated by the learned Tribunal.

8. First coming to the challenge advanced by the insurer regarding his contention that the offending vehicle has been implanted in this case, admittedly no evidence has been adduced either by the insurer or by the owner to that effect. It was even not pleaded by them before the Tribunal. On the other hand, it is seen from the certified copies of the police papers that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused-driver for commission of offences under Sections 279/337/304-A, I.P.C. to stand criminal prosecution. Besides, PW-2 as an eye-witness of the accident has categorically deposed before the learned Tribunal narrating involvement of the present offending vehicle flawlessly. The insurer could not able to elicit anything contrary during her cross-examination and rather she stood firm in her contention. The insurer even did not choose to put any suggestion to said PW-2 to exclude involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Therefore, such contention of the insurer to discard involvement of the present offending vehicle in the accident is rejected out-right being without substance. On the other hand, the evidence of said PW-2 coupled with the copies of the police papers such as FIR, charge-sheet etc clearly establishes death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident involving the present offending Truck.

9. Before delving further some undisputed facts need to be mentioned here. Those are, the deceased was aged about 21 years being her date of birth on 1.6.1992, she was a me