D.M. Patnaik, J.
1. This appeal though fixed for admission is taken up for final disposal on being agreed to by learned Counsel for both sides.
Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants points out that respondent No. 1 Smt. Rambhamani Mohapatra has died on 1.6.1999 and that since all her L.Rs. are already on record as respondents 2 to 6, no substitution is necessary and therefore the matter may be taken up for final disposal since the order will not cause prejudice to any one.
2. This appeal is against the award of Rs. 96,000/- by the 3rd M.A.C.T., Balasore in a motor accident claim cases.
Brief facts of the case is that-deceased Madan Mohan Mohapatra aged 57 years at the relevant time was serving as an Artist in Kalinga-Bijay Opera and was getting Rs. 30,000/- per year as salary. On 6.5.1994 at 4.30 p.m. in between Gopalpur-Palaspur Road he was waiting for a conveyance to Palaspur alongwith other Artists and articles for an Opera show at Palaspur. It is alleged that at that time the offending Truck O.R.U. 2010 belonging to Umesh Chandra Dalbehera came and dashed against the deceased being driven in a rash and negligent manner. After hitting the deceased the truck went down to the canal water by the side of the road. The deceased suffered bodily injuries and was taken to the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack where he succumbed to the injuries.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 both filed written statement separately, denying their liability for loss caused by the accident.
3. The Third M.A.C.T., Balasore framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident resulting the death of one Madan Mohan Mohapatra caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing registered No. O.R.U.-2010 which took place on 6.5.1994 at 4.30 p.m. in between Palaspur and Gopalpur?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation, as claimed and if so, from whom and to what extent?
(3) To what other relief if any of the petitioners are entitled?
4. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company strenuously urges that since the accident took place in the year 1994, the case should have been governed by the provisions of the old Act thereby treating the period for appeal as six months. Secondly, according to the old Act the case should have been tried by 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack and not by the 3rd M.A.C.T., Balasore. Thirdly, once the Tribunal found the age of the deceased 57, applying 16-year multiplier is against the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal.
6. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal. He has discussed the evidence on record and has appreciated them rightly. The point raised by learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, i.e. on limitation as well as jurisdiction matters are found to be of technical nature inasmuch as the fact remains that the accident occurred and in fact the deceased has died because of the accident and this finding itself cannot be disturbed in absence of any cogent reason. I am unable to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the Insurance Company on these two points. Those contentions are thus rejected.
7. However, so far as the point of application of 16-year multiplier is concerned, the appellant has a good case. The age of the deceased was found to be 57 years basing on the post-mortem report. The Tribunal has not committed any wrong in fixing the age basing on the post-mortem report. In that case, the appropriate multiplier should have been 10-year and accordingly that part of the judgment is modified to the extent and it is hereby directed that the Insurance Company is made liable to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in all besides statutory interest as prescribed under law.
8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, but without any cost. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 60,000/- within three months from today and if not pay within that time, it will carry interest @ 18% per annum from that date till payment. The Insurance Company is free to take back the amount already deposited.