Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2009 Against the judgment dated 19.09.2008 and award dated 10.12.2008 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge Cum Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal Patna in M.V. Claim Case No. 111 of 1998. =========================================================== National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Sri Anjani Kumar A.O. Cum and Duly constituted Attorney National Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office 4th Floor Sone Bhawan B.C. Patel Road P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Sachiwalaya Patna District Patna .... .... (Opp. Party No. 3 …….. Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Saraswati Devi, Wife of Late Mangleshwar Sharma --- (Claimant No. 1) 2. Munni Kumari daughter of Late Mangleshwar Sharma (Minor) --- (Claimant No. 2) 3. Lali Kumari daughter of Late Mangleshwar Sharma (Minor) --- (Claimant No. 3) 4. Utpal Kant son of Late Mangleshwar Sharma (Minor) --- (Claimant No. 4) Minors under the guardianship of Respondent No. 1 their mother, All residents of village Kharagpur Kanchanpur P.S. & P.O. Bihta District Patna. 5. Sri Krishna Murai Son of Mani Singh Resident of Chandmari Road Patna P.O. Chandmari Road P.S. Kankarbagh District Patna. ……….. (Opp. Party No. 1) 6. Sri Karta Swashi Son of Sri Gopal Swashi Resident of Village and P.O. Dharhara P.S. Paliganj District Patna ……… (Opp. Party No. 2) .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi Mrs. Shobha Choubey Mr. Annamma Mathew For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh Mr. Jitendra Nath Tiwary Mr. Upendra Mishra =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-03-2012 The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’) has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.09.2008 and award dated 10.12.2008 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge Patna High Court MA No.15 of 2009 dt.13-03-2012 2 / 6 2 cum Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 111 of 1998, whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim petition preferred by respondent no. 1 to 4 for grant of compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal has directed appellant / insurer of the offending vehicle to make payment of compensation amount of Rs. 3,26,400/- with funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000/- and loss of consortium to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. Direction was issued to make payment of the aforesaid amount after deducting the amount of interim compensation which was paid at an early stage under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Short fact of the case is that on 7.3.1997 while the husband of the respondent no. 1 was moving on road, west of village Kanchanpur on Patna-Paliganj road, he was dashed by a bus bearing Registration No. B.E.A. 9525, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. After the accident the husband of the respondent no. 1 died and autopsy was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. An F.I.R., vide Bihta P.S. Case No. 49 of 1997, was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] against the driver of the said offending vehicle. It further appears, that after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle. The wife of the deceased, who is the respondent no. 1, along with her two minor daughters and one Patna High Court MA No.15 of 2009 dt.13-03-2012 3 / 6 3 minor son, filed a claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal and in support of the claim, the claimants, examined altogether three witnesses. Regarding the income of the deceased, it was claimed, that the deceased was doing business of selling the milk. It was also disclosed that the deceased was an educated person and at the time of accident the age of the deceased was 32 years. Of-course, no supporting documents were brought on record regarding the income of the deceased, but at the same time, the insurer had not disputed regarding the income of the deceased. However, the learned Claims Tribunal had come to the conclusion that he was earning Rs. 80/- per day, and accordingly, adopting multiplier of 17, the compensation amount was directed to be paid. The appellant before this court has assailed the judgment and award of the learned Claims Tribunal only on the point of quantum of compensation. Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the appellant, has heavily relied on an order passed by the Apex Court reported in (2008) 4 SCC 717 (PONNUMANY ALIAS KRISHNAN AND ANOTHER Versus V.A. MOHANAN AND OTHERS). It was submitted by Sri Priyadarshi, that in case of non- establishment of the fact regarding income, the learned Claims Tribunal was required to adopt notional income as prescribed in Schedule II of the M.V. Act i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per year, but the learned Patna High Court MA No.15 of 2009 dt.13-03-2012 4 / 6 4 Claims Tribunal had incorrectly persuaded to consider the income of the deceased as Rs. 80/- per day, and as such, the judgment and award of the learned Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 111 of 1998, is required to be interfered with. Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 4 / claimants, has opposed the prayer of the appellant. It was submitted by Sri Singh that it was a fit case for enhancement of the amount of compensation but since the respondent no. 1 was a widow having three minor children, she was not in a position to prefer an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. He submits that the PONNUMANY Case (Supra) was decided in different context. In the said case agriculture income was claimed without any cogent material and in that case the Apex Court held to prefer for notional income instead of going on un- established agriculture income. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record incl

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.