H.C. Mishra, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd., and learned counsel for the claimant respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 4 had refused to accept the notice issued by this Court, which was deemed to be validly served upon him. Even before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi, the owner, respondent No. 4 had not appeared in spite of notice and the Tribunal had proceeded ex parte as against the respondent No. 4 herein.
(2.) The appellant National Insurance Company Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the ' Insurance Company), has challenged the Judgment dated 26.9.2014, passed by the MACT, Ranchi, in Compensation Case No. 284 of 2012, whereby, upon adjudication of the case, the compensation amount of Rs.36,16,800/- has been awarded with interest @ 6% p.a., in favour of the complainants respondents Nos. 1 to 3, who are the wife and children of the deceased. The deceased, an Ex-Army man was the motorcycle rider on the date of accident, and he died due to the accident, said to be caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus in question. The claim case was filed claiming that the deceased being an Ex-Army man, was getting the pension from the Government of India at Rs.8062/- per month, and he was also getting remuneration of Rs.16,875/- per month from his contractual work, as he was serving in Special Striking Force with Orissa Police after his retirement from Army. On the basis of the documents brought on record and proved by the claimants, it was found that at the time of death, the deceased was aged 44 years and 7 months, and that the deceased was getting the pension of Rs.8062/- per month from the Government of India and he was also receiving the remuneration of Rs.16,875/- per month for his contractual service with Orissa Police. On the basis of this income, the compensation to be awarded was calculated by the MACT below, which came to Rs. 36,16,800/- and the same was accordingly, awarded with interest.
(3.) Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that after his retirement, the appellant was serving only on contractual basis, but the period for which he was employed on contract has not been brought on record and accordingly, the amount of compensation has been wrongly calculated applying the multiplier of 14, by the M.A.C.T. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the owner of the vehicle did not appear in the case and the Insurance Company had disputed the claim, stating that the valid documents of the vehicle had not been filed and accordingly, the Insurance Company was not liable to make the payment of compensation. But even this objection was not entertained by the M.A.C.T. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the M.A.C.T. cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;