IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.588 of 2004. 1.Viodyotma wife of Late Ravindra Kr. Singh. 2.Rajshree Kumari daughter of late Ravindra Kr.Singh. 3.Priya Priya Darshani. d/o late Ravindra Kr.Singh 4.Auchitya d/o late Ravindra Kr.Singh 5.Paritosh Aditya Singh. s/o late Ravindra Kr.Singh 6.Indira Devi wife of Late Kuldeep Roy. All residents of village Dhirachak, Anisabad, P.S.Gardanibagh, District Patna…………………………………………...Appellants. Versus 1.Shankar Singh son of Ratan Singh, Resident of village Subhai Grah, P.O. and P.S.Haripur, District Vaishali. 2.Ranvijay Singh son of Late Ram Janam Singh, Resident of Ramna School Road, Boderghat Padnel P.O. Gulzarbagh, District Patna. 3.Orientgal Insurance Company C/0 Divisiojal Manager, Divisiojnal Office No.1, Exhibition Road, P.O.G.P.O. District Patna…………………………….….Respondents. ----------- 17 24.11.2008 This appeal is heard under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C. The appellant who happened to be the claimant before the learned District Judge-IV, Patna has filed this appeal for enhancement of the claim amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lacs) with interest at the rate of 7 per cent from the date of filing the claim as allowed to them under claim case No.71 of 2002. The claimants filed the claim case for a claim of Rs.7,00,000/- including the amount of funeral expenses, loss of estates and loss of consortium for the death of husband and father, namely, Ravindra Kumar Singh who died in a motor accident on 21st December 2001 at 4:00 P.M. caused by Bus No.BR/1C/0920 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The O.P.No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company was the Insurer of the vehicle and he - 2 - has been ordered to pay the compensation amount. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was an employee in Sitamarhi Civil Court and he was drawing a monthly salary ofRs.6,710/- which included his basic pay, D.A., medial allowance and house rent allowance. The trial court took the monthly income amounting to Rs.6,435/- for the purpose of calculating the monthly income of the deceased who was aged about 41 years. Deducting 1/3rd of the amount, a sum of Rs.4,290/- was taken and by applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘15’ the amount came to Rs.7,72,200/- and thereupon Rs.9,500/- was added towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium and thus, the total amount came to Rs.7,81,700/-, but the appellants/claimants had put a claim of Rs.7,00,000/- only and the Claims Tribunal allowed a claim of Rs.7,00,000/- only and further allowed interest of 7 per cent from the date of filing of the claim case. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when after using the appropriate multiplier the amount to be allowed as claim came to rs.7,81,700/- the Claims Tribunal ought to have allowed their claim. Mr.Mukteshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, Respondent No.3 and Sri Baua Jee Jha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the appellants had put the claim at a figure of Rs.7,00,000/- only and the claim petition i.e. the plaint was never amended before the Claims Trtibunal for incorporating any enhanced amount claimed, therefore, - 3 - the learned Claims Tribunal was perfectly justified in allowing the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- as per the claim put in the plaint i.e. claim petition. It was also submitted that the claimants himself found the damages at Rs.7,00,000/- only and claimed the same before the Claims Tribunal paying court fee over the amount and during the proceeding no prayer was ever made for making any amendment in the plaint for enhancing the amount claimed. In such view of the matters, I find that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim at Rs.7,00,000/- which amount was claimed in the claim petition. The interest allowed to the appellants/claimants is also proper and jusdtified. Finding no merit in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed. Jay/ (C.M.Prasad,J)