IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.135 of 2004 Manju Devi wife of Late Chitrasen Pathak @ Chitradeo Pathak, resident of Village-Hathuwa, P.O.Hathuwa, P.S. Mirganj, District-Gopalganj. ……Claimant-Appellant. Versus 1. Prabhu Nath Singh S/o Rajendra Singh, resident of Village-Mirganj, District-Gopalganj, owner of the vehicle. 2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Gopalganj. 3. Dhrup Narayan Pandey S/o Bacha Pandey, resident of village- Baniyapur, P.O. Chhitauni, District- Motihari (Driver of the bus). …….. Opposite parties-Respondents. For the appellant : Mr. Jyotendra Pratap Singh, Advocate For respondent no.2 : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate. ----------- 13. 19/02/2010 I.A.No.7138 of 2009 This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Having heard Mr. Jyotendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2, I am satisfied that sufficient grounds do exist for condoning the delay and accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. - 2 - M.A.No.135 of 2004 Heard Mr. Jyotendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the insurer on whom the liability has been fastened. On consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally heard. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), against the award dated 06.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge I-cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gopalganj ( for short, ‘the tribunal’) in M.V. no.16 of 1998 whereby the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,21,500/- as compensation to the wife of the deceased, namely, Chitrasen @ Chitradeo Pathak. The facts relating to causation of accident, the entitlement of the appellant and such other ancillary aspect need not be stated because the claimant has come up in appeal questioning the quantum only. As the sole question relates to the quantum, I have carefully perused the award passed by the tribunal. There is no dispute over the factum that the deceased was working as an agent of L.I.C. Gopalganj Branch. He was - 3 - aged about 36 years. On a perusal of the documents on record, it is clearly perceptible that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.40,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenditure, Rs.26,000/- is determined as the yearly contribution to the family. Regard being had to the age of the deceased, I am disposed to think it would be apt to apply the multiplier of ‘16’. The amount of compensation would, thus, come to Rs.26,000/- x 16 = Rs.4,16,000/-. To this sum, an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses shall be added, and, thus, in toto the amount of compensation would come to Rs.4,16,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,000 = Rs.4,30,500/- (Four lac, thirty thousand five hundred). In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award passed by the tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Dilip/ Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.)