Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.476 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Krishna Sah , Son of Late Raghu Sah. 2. Nunu Kumari, minor aged 10 years, D/o Krishna Sah. 3. Priyanka Kumari, minor aged 6 years, D/o Krishna Sah. 4. Rinki Kumari, minor aged 3 years, D/o Krishna Sah. Serial No. 2 to 4 are minor daughters of Late Krishna Sah under the guardianship of their father – appellant no. 1. All are resident of village – Sinhahi, P.O. – Mehrauli, P.S. – Doriganj, District – Saran. (Claimant No. 1 to 4) .... .... Appellants Versus 1. Smt. Girija Devi , W/o Bengali Rai, Resident of Village and Mohalla – Chhota Telpa, P.O. Chapra (H.O.), P.S. – Chapra Muffasil, District – Saran (Owner of the Tempo) (Opposite Party No. 1) …… Respondents 2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Plaza Complex , At Municipal Chowk, P.O. Chapra (H.O.) P.S. Chapra Town, District Saran. (Opposite Party No. 2) .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR CAV ORDER 7 25-06-2012 The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) has been preferred against judgment dated 9.2.2010 and award dated 24.2.2010, passed by Sri Kamal Kishore Sinha, learned 8th Additional District Judge cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Saran at Chapra, (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 39 of 2006. The learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim petition but since the learned Claims Tribunal had proceeded to calculate the compensation on the basis of notional income, the claimants have preferred this Patna High Court MA No.476 of 2010 (7) dt.25-06-2012 2 / 8 2 appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount, on the plea that deceased was having monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and directed the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. Respondent No. 2/United India Insurance Co. Ltd., to make payment of total compensation amount of Rs. 1,34,500/- which includes Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- on account of loss of estate along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount which was to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Short fact of the case is that on 30.5.2006 at about 7.00 PM, one Sahodara Devi along with her husband, who is appellant no. 1 before this court, while was coming from Doriganj on a Rickshaw, a truck bearing registration no. BRD6627, which was going towards Hajipur dashed the Rickshaw. At the time of accident the offending truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. However, after accident the driver of the truck leaving the truck fled away. In the accident Sahodara Devi received serious injuries and while she was being carried to Sadar Hospital, Chapra, she succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, an FIR vide Doriganj PS Case No. 40 of 2006, was registered Patna High Court MA No.476 of 2010 (7) dt.25-06-2012 3 / 8 3 against the driver of the offending truck for the offence under [STATUTE] . Police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the driver of the offending truck. Subsequently, the husband of the deceased along with three minor children filed a claim petition under the provisions of MV Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00000/- against the owner and insurer of the offending truck. It was claimed that deceased at the time of accident was aged about 38 years and she was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as labourer. In addition to earning as labour, it was further claimed that deceased was earning Rs. 300/- per month from selling milk. It was not in dispute that at the relevant time the offending truck was under insurance cover of the Respondent No. 2 / United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Since after the claim petition was allowed and Respondent No. 2 / insurer of the offending truck was directed to pay the compensation amount and insurer of the offending truck had not preferred any appeal, there is no point to discuss the case of the parties in detail. Only point which is required to be noticed is as to whether the learned Claims Tribunal was justified in directing the insurer to make payment of compensation amount on the basis of notional income, whereas, before the learned Claims Tribunal it was specifically pleaded that deceased was Patna High Court MA No.476 of 2010 (7) dt.25-06-2012 4 / 8 4 having earning of Rs. 3,000/- per month as labourer and also she was earning Rs. 300/- per month by way of selling milk. It is further evident that though no documentary evidence was brought on record to corroborate the claim of income of the deceased, the claimants had pleaded before the learned Claims Tribunal that deceased was having earning. Meaning thereby, that it was not a case where the deceased was not having any earning. Sri Mukesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the claimants / appellants has argued that once it was pleaded and claimed that deceased was having earning, the learned Claims Tribunal was not justified to calculate the compensation amount on the basis of notional income i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per annum. He submits that Schedule II of the MV Act makes it clear that notional income is to be taken into account only in a case where the deceased was either infant, minor boy or an older person not capable to earn. In the present case, according to learned counsel for the appellants, it was specific case of the claimants that deceased was a labourer and was earning Rs. 100/- per day, which is Rs. 3,000/- per month. Besides this, she was also earning Rs. 300/- per month

Applicable IPC Section: 337

Statute Text:
Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing hurt by an act which endangers human life, etc. Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.