A. Pasayat, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. The claimants are the legal representatives of one Banchhanidhi Das, who lost his life in an accident on 7.4.1985. The position as indicated in the application filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, ‘the Act’) is that the deceased was proceeding on Gop-Konark Road facing towards Gop side. While he was walking on the left side the vehicle bearing registration No. ORX 1449 came at a high speed and dashed against him as a result of which he sustained injuries on his head and leg. First he was taken to Gop Hospital for treatment and on the advice of the Medical Officer he was being taken to S.C.B. Medical College Hospital for better treatment but on the way he breathed his last. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed on the ground that the deceased was about 52 years and was doing business in purchase and sale of pigs out of which he was earning Rs. 700/- per month and used to contribute Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per month to the dependants.
3. The claimants claimed that they are the son and daughter-in-law respectively. The Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri (in short, ‘the Tribunal’) on assessment of evidence on record came to hold that the deceased was aged about 52 years and was getting a monthly income of Rs. 400/- out of which he was contributing Rs. 250/- to the family. A multiplier of 8 was adopted and the gross entitlement of the claimants was determined at Rs. 24,000/-. After deducting one-sixth from the said sum, Rs. 20,000/- was quantified as compensation payable. A further sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded for the loss of happy family life. The quantum awarded by the Tribunal is assailed in this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the quantum awarded is on the lower side. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short, ‘the insurer’) supports the order. I find that after having adopted the multiplier of 8, further deduction of one-sixth has been made without indicating any reason as to why such deduction was necessary. When a multiplier is adopted the question of making any further deduction does not arise. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to Rs. 24,000/- instead of Rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of income. In other words, the appellants shall be entitled to receive a further sum of Rs. 4,000/-. Let the said sum be paid to the claimants-appellants within a period of two months.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Appeal partly allowed.