- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C. Tribunal, Uttar Dinajpore at Raigunj in Case No. M.A.C. 53/96.
(2.) Going through the aforesaid impugned award we find that the learned Judge arrived at the conclusion that not the relevant point of time, age of the deceased was more than 40 years. However, the learned Judge while assessing the compensation amount decided to adopt '5' as multiplier, which is applicable in the event the age of the victim is above 50 years. In the present case, the learned Judge admittedly held that the deceased was more than 40 years at the relevant point of time, and, therefore, the multiplier should be '15' instend of '5' in terms of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The learned Tribunal rightly decided the notional income of the deceased in absence of' any cogent evidence regarding income of the decayed, at Rs. 15.000/- per year and after deducting 1/3rd from his total income the yearly contribution of the deceased towards his family has been properly assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per year. So, the actual compensation amount will come to Rs. 10.000/- X 15 = 1,50,000/-. Admittedly, the petitioners have received Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of the M. V. Act and, therefore, the said petitioners are entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- as final compensation under Section 166 of the said Act.
(3.) Learned Advocate representing the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the age of the deceased should be accepted as more than 50 years, though the said learned Advocate of the Insurance Company did not furnish any reason in support of his argument. In any event the specific finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the age of the deceased is that deceased is aged more than 40 years and certainly not above 50 years. The aforesaid finding of the learned Tribunal regarding age of the deceased has not been challenged by the Insurance Company before this Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, we have no hesitation to accept the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the age of the deceased. Furthermore, there is room for contention that age difference generally between the husband and wife under normal circumstances is two to five years. Therefore, in the present case we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal committed an error by accepting '5' as multiplier instead of '15'. We therefore accept '15' as the multiplier in the present case.;