The calculation of compensation in fatal accident claims must consider notional income and apply established multipliers, ensuring just compensation for loss of dependency along with general damages.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an appeal by the insurance company (hereinafter referred to as “the insurer”) against the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2025 passed by learned 4^th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned tribunal”) in MAC case No.36/186 of 2017-16 directing the insurer to pay a sum of Rs. 6,35,000/- together with simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f 20.09.2016 till its actual realization to the claimants-R-1 to 3 for the death of the deceased Tirthabasi Naik in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the present appeal arises out of the claim preferred by R-1 to 3 for the accident that took place on 15.06.2016 at about 1PM, when deceased minor son of R-1 & 2 was dashed by an Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.OD-09-E- 2388 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) at Dhurpada, Keonjhar resulting in his death. On this accident, Keonjhar Town PS Case No. 206 of 2016 was registered which culminated in submission of charge sheet. The deceased was a minor boy and was reading in Class-IX. Accordingly, the Respondents approached the tribunal in an application U/S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short “the Act”) for grant of compensation for the death of the deceased by impleading the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. In response to the notice of the claim (MAC case No.36/186 of 2017-16), the owner of the offending vehicle preferred not to contest the claim and accordingly, was set exparte, but the insurer who was OP No.2 in the proceeding before the tribunal contested the claim by filing written statement denying all the allegations leveled against it and disowning its liability.

3.1. On the interse pleadings between the parties, the learned tribunal stuck two issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and accordingly, the claimants examined 2 witnesses vide PW1 and PW2 and proved 13 documents under Ext.1 to Ext. 13 as against no evidence whatsoever by the insurer.

4. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned tribunal passed the impugned judgment directing the insurer to pay compensation amount indicated supra giving right of recovery from the owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the insurer has preferred this appeal.

5. Heard, Mr. Smarajit Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for R-1 to R-3 in the appeal and perused the record, but none appears for R-4 despite valid service of notice.

6. After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, there is no dispute about the accident occurring due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, but the dispute that is carried in this appeal is as to the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, however, it is an undisputed fact that the deceased was a minor boy and he was aged about 15 years at the time of his death and the learned tribunal, however, computed the compensation towards loss of dependency of the claimants in paragraph-22 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-

“22. Therefore, in the present case as it reveals from the evidence of the PW.1 that the child was a school going student and was 15 years placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts the notional income is taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum inclusive of future prospect. As the deceased was 15 years old applying the multiplier “18” in view of the observation in Sarla Verma &. Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC),the loss of dependency of income comes to Rs.30,000 X 18 = Rs.5,40,000/-. Besides this, the Petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,