ORDER
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. Dash for Corporation.
2. The judgment dated 12.9.1995 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 574 of 1990 is assailed by the petitioner-appellants. In the said judgment the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 48,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 23.7.1990 till payment.
3. In a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 05.2.90 the deceased who was travelling by a cycle sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of jeep bearing registration No. OSM-2614. It was averred that the deceased as 20 years’ old and he was earning a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month.
4. The owner of the offending jeep did not contest the case and was set ex parte. The Insurance Company filed a written statement vaguely denying the averments made in the claim application.
5., On the basis of the pleadings five issues were framed by the Tribunal. The petitioners got two witnesses examined and exhibited four documents. On behalf of the Insurance Company for the reasons best known no oral evidence was adduced nor any document was exhibited except xerox copy of the Insurance Policy.
6. After assessing the evidence both oral and documentary the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. After perusing the evidence once again this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. The Tribunal taking the age of the deceased to be 20 years and his income to be Rs. 25/- per day applying “8” multiplier awarded a sum of Rs. 48,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. 23.7.1990.
7. According to Mr. Mohanty the Tribunal committed illegality while assessing the income of the deceased and also in applying “8” multiplier. He submitted that the Tribunal should have taken the income of the deceased at least to be Rs. 1,500/- per month according to the Minimum Wages Act and assessed the compensation.
This submission is strongly repudiated by Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. According to him in the year 1990 the minimum wage was Rs. 25/- per day and thus the Tribunal has not committed any error. It is further submitted that the age of the mother being 40 application of multiplier “8” was not correct. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Transport Corporation v. Krishna Bala and Ors. reported in 2006 (5) Supreme 433 he submitted that in a motor accident claim in death case choice of multiplier is to be determined by age of the deceased or that of claimants whichever is higher by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. Law is well settled that the multiplier method is evolved for ascertainment of the loss of dependency of the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by appropriate multiplier. (See 2005 (7) Supreme 171 in the case of the Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu and Ors.).
8. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two cases this Court finds that the deceased was a 20 years’ young boy. He was in the prime of his youth. The mother of the deceased was also 40 years’ old and she has lost her son. That apart the deceased was working as a labourer. The wages earned cannot be assessed on mathematical calculation. It varies from the types of job done. Considering all these facts and the fact that a young boy in the prime of his youth has died this Court feels that a further sum of Rs. 27,000/- in lump sum would be just, proper and in the ends of justice. Accordingly this Court directs the Insurance Company to pay the petitioner-appellants further sum of Rs. 27,000/-.
9. The amount awarded by this Court shall be deposited before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the Tribunal. After the amount is deposited the same shall be disbursed in favour of the petitioner-appellants on proper identification. It is needless to say that if the compensation amount is not deposited within the time stipulated above the same shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of this judgment till payment.
10. The Misc. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.