IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.206 of 2006 DIVISIONAL MANAGER, National Insurance Company Ltd., Motijheel, Muzaffarpur, represented through Sri Pravin Kumar Sinha and constituted attorney of the National Insurance Company Ltd. Having its Regional Office at 4th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Beer Chand Patel Path, Patna, P.S. Sachiwalaya, District.Patna. ---------Appellant Versus 1. SATISH KUMAR ROY, son of Ram Krishna Pd. Roy, 2. Indu Devi, wife of Sri Satish Kumar Roy, 3. Both resident of vill. Bisan Patti, P.S. Saraiya, Distt. Muzaffarpur. 4. Rajeshwar Choudhary, son of Binda Choudhary, resident of vill. Jaferpur, P.S. Paroo, District-Muzaffarpur (owner of Tata 407 bearing its registration No.BR 06G-0505. ----------- 05. 23.04.2010. Heard the learned counsel, Sri Shailendra Kumar on behalf of the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. This Appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. against the Judgment and Award dated 02.03.2006 and 13.03.2006 respectively passed by Sri Amlendu Kumar Sinha, 5th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case No.130 of 2003 granting award to the extent of Rs.1,12,917/- to the claimant. According to the claimant on 26.01.2001, Pappu Kumar, aged about 9 years had gone to school to attend the function and while he was returning, a vehicle being Tata 407 bearing its registration No.BR- 2 06G-0505 dashed Pappu Kumar causing serious injury to him. After trial, the learned Court below came to the conclusion that Pappu Kumar received serious injury and his leg was permanently damaged. Exhibit 2 is the Handicaps Certificate granted by the Doctor. The disablement is of 35 per cent. The learned Court below after considering the above facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of notional income calculated, the just compensation and awarded Rs.1,12,917/-. It appears that Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the learned Tribunal directed that the said Rs.25,000/- be deducted from the awarded amount. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly granted award to the extent of Rs.1,12,917/-, particularly when the boy, Pappu Kumar, was aged about only 9 years. From perusal of the record, it appears that the notional income has been considered and the same has been multiplied by 15 and out of that 35 per cent has been deducted because according to the handicap 3 certificate given by the Medical Board, i.e., Exhibit 2, said Pappu Kumar was disabled up to 35 per cent. Exhibit 3 shows that the claimant have filed various prescriptions and case memos showing the purchase of medicine. The learned Tribunal also added said amount and thereafter came to the total amount as said above at Rs.1,12,917. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and further I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. In the result, I find no merit in this Misc. Appeal and accordingly it is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant before this Court may be remitted to the Court below so that the said amount should be given to the applicants which will be adjusted from the total awarded amount. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)