Proper application of multipliers for dependency calculations requires accurate assessments of age, and courts have discretion to alter interest rates based on case circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

This matter was taken up through Video Conferencing Mode due to COVID-19 Pandemic.

2. I have heard Mr Soubhagya Sundar Das learned counsel for the appellant- claimant, Mr V Narasingh learned counsel for Respondent No 3 and Mr S.K Mohanty for Respondent No 4. Though notice has been sent to Respondent No. 1 (owner of truck bearing registration number OIU 6163) through registered post with A.D, pursuant to order dated 28.01.2016 and 24.06.2016, as per office note dated 16.07.2016 of the registry no counsel has appeared on his behalf.

3. This appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the judgment/award dated 03.10.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge cum M.A.C.T, Cuttack, in MAC Case No.408 of 1995, awarding an amount of Rs.4,34,920/- as compensation along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 19.06.1995 till realization . The learned tribunal had directed respondent No.1 the registered owner of the truck and respondent No. 4 the insurer of vehicle bearing registration number ADN 4842 to pay 50% of the compensation and had also directed them to bear the cost of the proceeding in equal proportion .

4. It appears from the impugned award that the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act had earlier been dismissed as per the award dated 18.03.2009. Pursuant to order dated 1.12.2011 passed in MAC Appeal No 411 of 2009 by this Court, the award was set aside and the case remitted to the tribunal for fresh disposal after providing opportunity of hearing to both parties . The Tribunal has observed that only Ext 12 was produced by the claimant during fresh enquiry.

5. Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that on 2.2.1995 at about 2.30 pm, when the deceased- Kodandhar Mallik, who was working as Headmaster –cum- Superintendent in a Govt. educational Institution was moving as a passenger in a truck bearing registration number OIU 6163, the truck had a head on collision with another truck bearing registration number ADN 4842 on N.H 5 near Krushnadaspur village and sustained fatal injuries . Truck No. ADN 4842 was registered with the United Insurance Company, truck No OIU 6163 was insured with National Insurance company . The deceased was aged less than 40 years at the time of occurrence . Even though the offending truck bearing registration no. OIU 6163 was covered by a valid insurance policy issued by Respondent No. 3 and neither its owner nor its insurer Respondent No 3 appeared in the Tribunal to contest the case, the learned tribunal has settled 50% of the liability on the owner only and erroneously absolved respondent No 3 - insurer of the offending truck. He further states that even though the age of the deceased was less than 40 years as per his duplicate service book –Ext 5 and date of birth has been noted to be 10.11.1955 by the Tribunal by virtue of which his age would be 39 years 9 months on the date of accident, and the learned tribunal has found him to be less that 40 years but it has erroneously applied the multiplier of 15 in place of 16 . His third contention is that the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is too low and the same should be enhanced from 6% to 12 % .

6. Mr. V Narasingh learned counsel for respondent No 3 vehemently denies the liability of Respondent No, 3 National Ins