Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.877 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Sundarwa Devi w/o Late Anil Prasad @ Anil Kumar 2. Santosh Kumar S/o Late Anil Prasad @ Anil Kumar Both are residents of Mohalla- Mirzapur, P.S. + District- Nawada .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Krishna Singh S/O Anirudh Singh, owner of Truck No.BR-17H-7441, Mohalla-West Munidih Colony, P.S. Tejalmari, District-Dhanbad 2. National Insurance Company Limited through Branch Office, Branch Manager, Gauri Niwas, Mathuria Mohalla, Biharsharif, Nalanda ---- (Opp.Parties)..... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------ 5 30-11-2012 Heard Sri Rabi Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent no.2/ National Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. insurer of the offending vehicle. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as “the M.V.Act”) has been preferred by the claimants/appellants against the Judgment dated 30.06.2011 and Award dated 13.07.2011 passed by Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.IV-cum-M.A.C. Tribunal, Nalanda at Biharsharif (hereinafter referred to as “the Claim Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 32 of 2007. By the said Judgment and Award, the learned Claim Tribunal has directed the Respondent no.2 to pay total compensation amount of Patna High Court MA No.877 of 2011 (5) dt.30-11-2012 2 / 8 2 Rs.2,60,000/-. Since no appeal has been preferred by the Respondent no.2, who has been directed to pay the compensation against the Judgment and Award, the Court is of the opinion that there is no need to hear the Respondent no.1/ owner of the offending vehicle and, as such, the matter was heard in absence of owner and is being disposed of by this order. The appellant has primarily prayed for enhancement of compensation amount. Firstly, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased at the time of accident was earning about Rs.3,500/- per month and, as such, keeping in view the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/-, compensation should have been calculated, but the learned Claim Tribunal has treated income of the deceased as Rs.80/- per day in view of the circular of the State Government. It has further been argued that during the trial before the learned Claim Tribunal though on behalf of the claimants, Matriculation Certificate of the deceased was got exhibited showing date of birth of the deceased as 22.05.1995 on the date of death of the deceased was aged about 44 years and as such, multiplier in this case was required to be adopted as 15, but the learned Claim Tribunal has treated the age of the deceased on the basis of post- mortem examination report as 50 and multiplier of 13 has been Patna High Court MA No.877 of 2011 (5) dt.30-11-2012 3 / 8 3 adopted. Learned counsel for the appellants has further prayed for adding 30% on the income of the deceased as future prospect. Since the appeal has been preferred only for enhancement of the compensation amount and no cross appeal has been filed by the insurer of the vehicle, who has been directed to pay compensation amount, there is no need to go into detail of the case. However, short fact of the case is that on 23.11.1997, while the decease Anil Prasad @ Anil Kumar, husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellant no.2 was waiting for a vehicle near road-side, a truck bearing Registration No.BR- 17H/7441, which was driven rashly and negligently by the driver, dashed the husband of appellant no.1 and he was crushed to death. In view of the said accident, an F.I.R. vide Deepnagar P.S. Case No.165 of 1997 was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] against the driver of the offending vehicle and subsequently, chargesheet was also submitted against the driver, namely, Mahesh Singh. The claim petition was subsequently filed claiming compensation amount of Rs.3 Lacs before the learned Claim Tribunal, evidences were led and, thereafter, the learned Claim Tribunal arrived to the conclusion that death had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the vehicle in question Patna High Court MA No.877 of 2011 (5) dt.30-11-2012 4 / 8 4 was under the insurance cover of Respondent no.2 i.e. National Insurance Companion Ltd. Regarding income, though, oral evidence was brought on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs.3,500/- per month from milk and agricultural business, no documentary evidence was brought on record to substantiate the claim of the income of the deceased and, as such, the learned Claim Tribunal on the basis of the wages applicable as per the Circular of the State Government i.e. Rs.80/- per day calculated the compensation amount and directed the insurer to pay compensation amount as indicated above. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has produced Ext.1 i.e. Matriculation Certificate of the deceased. Let it be kept on record. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that before the learned Claim Tribunal regarding age of the deceased documentary evidence i.e. Matriculation Certificate was brought on record, but the learned Claim Tribunal ignoring the same has preferred to rely on post- mortem examination report and considering the age of the deceased as 50 years calculated the compensation amount taking multiplier as 13, as provided under Schedule-II of the M.V.Act, whereas Matriculation Certificate , which was got exhibited, Patna High Court MA No.877 of 2011 (5) dt.30-11-2012 5 / 8 5 suggests that the deceased was aged about 44 years on the date of accident. He submits that since the Matriculation Certificate was brought on record, the learned Claim Tribunal was not required to rely on the basis of post-mortem examination report to come to the c

Applicable IPC Section: 279

Statute Text:
Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. Driving or riding on a public way so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, etc. Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.