IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.141 of 2003 BRANCH MANAGER , ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY GOPALGANJ BRANCH GOPALGANJ THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SRI V.K. SINHA DEPUTY MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY REGIONAL OFFICE PIR MOHANI KADAM KUAN, PATNA …..(OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2)……APPELLANT Versus 1.MOST.DULARI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE NATHUNI CHOUDHARY (CLAIMANT NO. 1) 2.MOST. SAROJ, WIFE OF LATE ASHOK CHOUDHARY (CLAIMANT NO. 2) 3.SATYENDRA CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE ASHOK CHOUDHARY (CLAIMANT NO. 2) (MINOR) 4.JITENDRA CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE ASHOK CHOUDHARY (CLAIMANT NO. 2) (MINOR) BOTH UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER RESPONDENT NO. 2 ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE CHOTPUR, P.O. JIAIN, P.S. AND DISTRICT SIWAN 5.ADAM HUSSAIN, SON OF LUKMAN HUSSAIN VILLAGE TAKIA BANKA, P.O. P.S. DISTRICT GOPALGANJ ……..(OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1) …….RESPONDENTS For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Advocate ----------- 09. 07.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd February, 2003 passed by Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal-cum-3rd Additional District Judge Gopalganj in Claim Case No. 18 of 2009/ 21 of 2002 by which the Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,43,500/- with 9% interest during the 2 month of March 2000 till the recovery of money. The learned counsel for the appellant however contended that the quantum of compensation has been assessed, but no deduction has been made by the Tribunal regarding the personal expenses of the deceased from the said amount which was assessed as the impugned order is dismissed. He further contended that though the victim was traveling on the roof of the bus and hence she has been also affected. However, from the perusal of the record, it appears that the case of the petitioner that the accident took place at about 4.30 p.m. while the deceased was travelling on the bus from Siwan to Gopalganj and the truck was being driven rashly and negligently coming from Siwan and dashed with a Jamun tree and the deceased was a good businessman and was earning Rs. 200/- per day. However, the learned counsel for the appellant could not indicate any evidence or objection on the insurance company having taken that the deceased was traveling on the roof of the bus and thus he contributed. However, having regard to the fact that though the claim of the claimant that he was earning Rs. 200/- per day, but the Tribunal has fixed his income at Rs. 15,000/- 3 per annum and in support of that no papers were filed. However, the appellant has not moved against the finding and the insurance company has also not challenged the quantum and hence the only point remains that there is no deduction for the personal expense and hence it is hereby ordered that the 1/3rd income is required to be deducted from the quantum of the income assessed by the Tribunal, hence the order is modified to the extent that 1/3rd income i.e. approximately about Rs. 75,000/- be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased from the quantum fixed for compensation as his income to the tune of Rs. 2,43,000/- as assessed by tribunal and hence the claimant is entitled for claim of Rs. 1,59,500/- with 9% interest. However, since there is no evidence or material on record having been pointed out that the victim was travelling on the roof of the bus and no plea was taken for contributory negligence and hence there is no merit in the submission for deduction for contributory negligence by the deceased and hence the objection raised for the deduction of the contributory negligence is hereby rejected. The learned counsel for the appellant 4 contended that Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited at the time of filing of the appeal and hence the said amount be sent up for satisfaction of the award to the claimants and the rest of the amount shall be paid by the insurance company within two months. This Court orders accordingly. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with the above modification. Praveen (Gopal Prasad,J.)