IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.226 of 2006 SMT.MEENA DEVI & ANR Versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY ----------- For the appellant: Mr. R. Roy,Adv Mr.D.K. Singh, Adv. For the respondents : Seema, Adv. ---------- 5. 18.11.2008 With the consent of the parties, this appeal was heard finally under Order 41 Rule-11 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This appeal is for enhancement of claim compensation of Rs.1, 07, 000.00 as allowed to the claimant/appellant, the mother of the deceased, who died in a motor accident caused by truck no. BR-36GA/0127 on 13.5.1999. The United India Insurance Company has been held liable for the payment of the compensation amount. Vide the case of the claimants, the deceased was crushed under the said truck no.BR-36GA/0127 on 13.5.1999 and he was taken to the clinic of Dr Amrendra Kumar but he died and Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 124 of 1999 was instituted regarding the accident. The post mortem was conducted on the dead body in Sadar hospital, Purnia. It was claimed that the deceased was an unmarried boy, aged 20 years and he was teacher, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 2000/- by way of private coaching to the local students. A compensation claim amount of Rs. 3,37,000.00 was claimed. - 2 - The deceased’s mother Meena Devi (P.W.1) and father Hareram Prasad Yadav (P.W. 6) as well as witness Ram Bilash Yadav (P.W.5) testified before the claims Tribunal about the death having been caused due to the accident. In the aforesaid manner the F.I.R. of the Banmankhi P.S. 124 of 1999 was proved as Ext.1. The claimants also produced the matriculation certificate of the deceased which mentioned deceased’s date of birth as 15.11.19976. According to which date, the deceased was aged 22 years and six months on the date of the accident. Any documentary evidence was not produced in support of the claim of the deceased about his earning a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and also considering that any document was not produced in support of deceased’s income, the simple claim and averment about the income @ of Rs.2000/- per month was not believed and the learned claims Tribunal came to the finding that the deceased was a non-earning member and thus relaying clause-6 of the table under second schedule to the M.V. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) accepted a notional income of Rs.15000/- the deceased taking him as non-earning member. - 3 - During hearing the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was a meritorious boy who had passed matriculation and was a student of Bachelor of Arts and was doing tuition to the students and he was earning of Rs.2000/- per month. The learned counsel for the Insurance pointed out that any person has not been examined by the claimant to say that he or his ward had been taught by the deceased. It was also argued that only matriculation certificate of the deceased has been proved and there is no other certificates showing any other higher study. In such view of the matters, I find that when the deceased was a simple matriculate and himself a student, the learned claims Tribunal rightly accepted the formula calculating deceased’s income @ Rs. 15000/- per annum taking him as a non-earning member. In this case, the claims Tribunal has taken a multiplier of fifteen for the purpose of calculating compensation. During hearing the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 i.e. the Insurance Company raised a very important question that in case of settlement of final claim of compensation the dependency has to be found and calculated. In this context, it was submitted that while calculating dependency, the age of victim or dependency - 4 - whichever is more has to be accepted in order to find out the real dependency which is lost due to the death of the deceased. In support of his contention the learned counsel cited the case of General Manager, Kerela State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vrs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs) and Others reported in (1994) 2 SCC page 176 and the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain and Another Vrs. Irfan Ahammed and Another reported in (2002) 6 SCC page-52 and in the cited decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that life expectancy of the deceased or the beneficiaries, which ever is shorter, is the important factor. It was also held that the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or claims of the claimants which ever is higher. Thus while deciding the multiplier to be applied in such cases and in order to find out of the real dependency the age of the deceased or the claimants which ever is higher has to be taken. In this case the deceased’s age was 22 years and six months and out of the claimants, the mother who is class -1 heir of the deceased has claimed her age to be 40 years. Considering the age of the deceased the proper multiplier to be applicable in this case appears to be fifteen which is for the age group 40 to 45 years. Thus even taking the proper multiplier which is fifteen as applicable in this case, I find - 5 - that there is no need for any interference in the calculation as made by the claims Tribunal which has also used the multiplier fifteen. Thus the compensation to be allowed to the appellant/claimants by making a statutory deduction of one third comes to Rs.1, 50,000.00. The claims Tribunal has also allowed Rs.2000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- as loss of estate and thus, the total claim amount comes to Rs.1, 57,000.00. The claimant has received an interim claim of Rs.50, 000.00 as under Section 140 of the Act and by deducting this amount net amount payable to the appellant comes to Rs.1, 07,000.00. The learned claims Tribunal has not allowed any interest over the amount allowed to the appellant and it was simply ordered that if the amount is not paid within 60 days from the date of the order an interest @ 6 percent would be payable. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants are entitled to an interest at least from the date of filing of the claim petition but no interest has been allowed. The learned counsel for the Insurance submitted that in the memo of appeal the appellant simply challenged the quantum of compensation but he has not pleaded anything about interest. The learned counsel for the appellant replied that the claims Tribunal has itself allowed - 6 - interest but it was not allowed from the proper stage which part is challenged and the appellant is entitled to challenge it even orally at this stage. Considering the facts and circumstances, I feel that the learned claims Tribunal was not justified in refusing interest to the claimants which is fit to be allowed from the date of the filing the claims petition. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1, the Insurance Company submits that the entire claim of Rs.1, 07,000.00 as allowed to the claimant has already been paid on 12.7.2006. In such view of the matters, the claims Tribunal will verify of the matter and if the amount of compensation of Rs.1, 07, 000.00 has been satisfied in the aforesaid manner the amount of interest would be payable till the date of satisfaction i.e. 12.7.2006 of the award. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-