- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.04.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case no.219/2013 whereby the learned Tribunal directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the awarded compensation amount of Rs.36,64,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 31.08.2013 till its realisation.
(2.) The claimants' case is that the deceased-Rahul Srivastava was traveling with his friends, in the car bearing Registration no.JH-011-8118 from Hazaribagh to Ranchi and when they reached near Saru Bera More, at NH-33, then all of a sudden a truck bearing Registration no.JH-02P-0223 came from the opposite direction and dashed the car of the deceased as a result of which all the occupants of the car sustained multiple injuries. That with the help of the local people they were brought to Nai Sarai Central Hospital, Ramgarh but injured Rahul Srivastava succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the evidence and materials on record the Tribunal has passed the judgment/award impugned in the present appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that in view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma, 2009 6 SCC 121 wherein catena of decisions has been discussed and considered by the Apex Court, guidelines for determining and computing the compensation has been laid down and it has been enumerated that the multiplier applicable, for assessing the loss of dependency should be the age of the deceased. It is submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's case the multiplier applicable in the present case should be 9 as the deceased was aged 55 years two months and two days. That the multiplier of 11 is applicable when the deceased is aged 50 to 55 years. Since the age of the deceased was above 55 years the Tribunal has erred in assessing the loss of dependency by applying the multiplier of 11 which is applicable in the case where the age of the deceased is between 50 to 55. It is argued that even in a case where the age of a deceased exceeds 55 years by one day the multiplier applicable is 9 for the age group of 56 to 60 years and the loss of dependency has to be computed by using the multiplier of 9. That in the present case the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 11 whereas the applicable multiplier is 9. It is urged by the learned counsel that this is a case of contributory negligence since theere was a head on collision between both the vehicles as is evident from the recital of F.I.R and the chargesheet. It is submitted that the claimants have filed the income-tax returns of the deceased which are Ext. X/2, X/3 and X/4. It is argued that only Ext. X/2 should have considered by the Tribunal as this discloses the actual income of the deceased since it was filed by the deceased prior to his death. To buttress his argument learned counsel emphasised that in the decision reported in (2008) 4 SCC 224 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the income tax return which was filed after the death of the deceased is unacceptable. It is contended that in view of the aforesaid decision the Tribunal has erred in law by assessing the loss of dependency by computing the actual income of the deceased on the basis of the average of the three income tax returns without considering that Exts.X/3 and X/4 are income tax returns were filed subsequent to the death of the assessee i.e. the deceased. It is argued that by giving such a finding the Tribunal has acted against the settled legal position. On the above grounds it is canvassed that the impugned judgment/award is inflated and exorbitant and has been computed in contravention of the settled principles, consequently it is fit to be set aside.;