MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 415 OF 2009 (Against the judgment and award dated 13/5/2009 and 25/5/2009 respectively passed by Sri Kameshwar Nath Rai the Ist Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Gaya in M.A.C. Case No. 231 of 2008/103 of 2007) --------------- Ram Balak Manjhi, S/o Ram Briksh Manjhi, Resident of Village – Dhodi, P.S. – Mohanpur (Barachatti), District – Gaya. .... .... Claimant/ Appellant Versus 1. M/S Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager, R.J. Place Rai Kashi Nath More, Gaya. 2. M/S Ramiya Construction through its proprietor Suresh Prasad @ Suresh Yadav, 51 A.P. Colony, P.O. & P.S. – Rampur, District - Gaya .... .... Opposite Parties / Respondents ---------------- Appearance: For the Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Sanjay Singh --------------- PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred against the judgment dated 13/5/2009 and award dated 25/5/2009 passed by Sri Kameshwar Nath Rai, learned Ist Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Gaya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Claim Tribunal’) in M.A.C. Case No. 231 of 2008/103 of 2007 for enhancement of compensation amount. 2. Short fact of the case is that in a motor vehicle accident on 16/2/2007 while one Peyaria Devi alongwith her daughter Malti Kumari were going by the side of the road a tractor bearing registration no. BR-2F/4206 being rashly and 2 negligently driven by the driver dashed both of them resulting in their death on the spot. Accident had taken place on 16/2/2007 at about 7.30 P.M. Thereafter, an FIR vide Barachatti (Mohanpur) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007 under Sections 279, 338 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against driver of the offending tractor. After the death autopsy was conducted on the dead body of both the deceased, and thereafter, two claim cases vide M.A.C. Case No. 231 of 2008/103 of 2007 i.e. the present one and another vide M.A.C. Case No. 232 of 2008/102 of 2007 were filed in the ‘Claim Tribunal’. 3. The present case relates to death of Malti Kumari. The appellant being father of Malti Kumari had filed the claim case. Another claim petition was also filed by the present appellant along with his minor daughter which was numbered as M.A.C. No. 102 of 2007. By the common judgment both claim cases were disposed of on 13th May, 2009. In the present case since the deceased Malti Kumari was aged about ten years at the time of accident having no income, the ‘Claim Tribunal’ awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the claimant/appellant. Since during the trial on the basis of interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act Rs. 50,000/- was already paid to the claimant, the ‘Claim Tribunal’ directed for deducting Rs. 50,000/- from the compensation amount and 3 ordered for payment of remaining Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till the payment of compensation amount. The Respondent No. 1 i.e. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to pay the compensation amount. 4. Aggrieved with the lesser compensation amount the present appeal has been preferred. Since in the present appeal only question which is involved is as to whether compensation amount in a case of death of minor child can be given on lump sum basis or in view of Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no need to delve into the matter in detail. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since there was statutory provision under the Act to calculate the compensation amount as per Schedule II, the learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ had grossly erred in fixing the compensation on lump sum basis. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his argument has heavily relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2003(2) PLJR (SC) 120 (Manju Devi Vs Musafir Paswan). It was submitted that the learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ was required to calculate the compensation amount as per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicle Act. It was further submitted that since the deceased was below the age of 15 years, notional income should be 4 multiplied with 15. According to learned counsel for the appellant, had it been multiplied as per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicle Act along with funeral expenses and loss of estate the total compensation amount would have come to Rs. 2,29,000/- and after deduction of the paid amount of Rs. 75,000/- the appellant was entitled to get remaining amount of Rs. 1,54,000/- 6. Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1/ M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. while opposing the present appeal has argued that the learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ has reasonably passed an order for payment of lump sum amount of compensation. It was pleaded that in the accident both wife and daughter of the appellant had died, and thereafter, the present appellant had filed two claim petitions before the learned ‘Claim Tribunal’. Both the claim cases were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment on 13th May, 2009. Since the deceased wife of the appellant was having earning, in respect of claim case filed in relation to her death the learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ directed for payment of total compensation amount of Rs. 2,59,100/- and in the present case a lump sum compensation amount of Rs. 75,000/- was directed to be paid keeping in view the fact that deceased was aged about 10 years old having no income. In compliance with the judgment and award of the Tribunal payment was also made to the claimant. 5 7. Sri Singh, has further argued that lump sum compensation was not an illegality but in the facts and circumstances of the case learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ has rightly awarded lump sum compensation. Sri Singh in support of his argument has relied on a single bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in II (2005) ACC 487 (Karveti Rathnamma & Ors. Vs New Sunbulk Carriers & Anr.). According to learned counsel for Respondent there is no error in the judgment and award, and as such, the appeal is liable to be rejected. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties I have also perused the materials available on record. 9. In this case only question involved is as to whether the compensation amount was to be paid in lump sum or as per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicle Act. The issue involved in the present case has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case reported in (1996)4 SCC 362 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs Trilok Chandra & Ors.). It would be appropriate to quote paragraph no. 13 of the judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Case (Supra) which is as follows: “13. It was rightly clarified that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to the present provision of Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) envisaged payment of ‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring 6 payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the awards made all over the country.” Same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2003(2) PLJR (SC) 120 (Manju Devi Vs Musafir Paswan). 10. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the court is of the opinion that there should be no departure from the multiplier method. The case law i.e. Karveti Rathnamma (Supra) referred by learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 has got no relevance due to the simple reason that in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the single bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court had approved the lump sum compensation. 11. In view of the law set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point of multiplier, the court is of the opinion that the learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ has committed error in awarding lump sum compensation instead of calculating the same as per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicle Act. The deceased in the present case was aged about 10 years, and as per Schedule II, in such case, notional income i.e. prescribed as Rs. 15,000/- was required to be taken into account, multiplied with 15 which comes to Rs. 2,25,000/-. The claimant is also entitled to get funeral expenses. This expense is considered as Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly, the total compensation amount comes to Rs. 2,30,000/-. Since Rs. 7 75,000/- compensation amount has already been paid, the appellant is entitled to get remaining amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed and impugned judgment and award passed by the learned ‘Claim Tribunal’ is modified up to that extent. The Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay aforesaid compensation amount to the claimant within a period of two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. The appeal stands allowed. However, no cost is imposed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 9th September, 2011. N.A.F.R./ Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)