IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.377 of 2010 1. Vijay Paswan , Son of Late Keshwar Paswan, 2. Meena Devi, Wife of Sri Vijay Paswan, Both residents of Village-Tira, Police Station- Hulasganj, Post Office- Dhawal Bigha, District-Jehanabad ------------------------ Appellants / Applicants. Versus 1. The National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Shanti Market , North of Gandhi Maidan, Police Station- Civil Lines, District-Gaya 2. Sri Ram Kumar Mehta and Shyam Kumar Mehta, Son of Late Ramautar Prasad Mehta at Mehta Service Station, Gaya-Nawada Road, Police Station- Moffasil, Post Office- Buniadganj, District- Gaya --------------- Responents/ Opposite Parties. ----------- 04 20-06-2011 Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants/ Claimants and Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.1/ National Insurance Company Ltd. In this case, an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.4689 of 2010 was filed for condoning the delay in filing the present Memorandum of appeal. After hearing the parties on limitation, I.A. No.4689 of 2010 is allowed. The present appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 24.12.2008 and Award dated 12.01.2009 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Gaya( hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.89 of 2006 , whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,64,084/- in favour of the claimants. The claimed amount is directed to be paid by Respondent no.1/ National Insurance Company Ltd. Short fact of the case is that on 30.8.2006 in a road accident, the 2 son of the claimants/ appellants died. After the accident, an F.I.R. vide Khizarsarai P.S. Case No.116 of 2006 was registered under Sections 279 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. In the F.I.R. as well as in the Postmortem Report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 19 years. Subsequently, the claimants filed a claim petition vide Motor Accident Claim Case No.89 of 2006. The appellants had claimed for compensation of Rs.3 Lacs on death of their son. During the pendency of the claim petition, a petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also filed for interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-, which was allowed. The claimants had claimed that their son was earning Rs.4000/- per month and he was running a bicycle sales and service shop. Along with the petition an affidavit was filed regarding the income of the deceased. However, no documentary evidence was brought on record by the claimants in support of monthly income of the deceased. In the claim petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 21 years. The learned tribunal considering the facts and circumstances in absence of any documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased has taken into account the Government Notification no.7/M.W.803/03 L & R1151 dated 5.4.2006 in respect of minimum rate of wages as per schedule Employment at the relevant time, which was Rs.78/- per day and taking into the said income , the learned tribunal in view of Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicle Act had calculated the income and concluded that the claimants were entitled to total compensation amount Rs. 2,64,000/-. Accordingly, the claim was allowed. While allowing the claim, the tribunal also directed to adjust the amount of interim compensation of Rs.50, 000/-, which was paid earlier. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that without any 3 basis the learned tribunal has taken into account the minimum wages rate and the learned tribunal had incorrectly ignored the stand of the claimants that their son was earning Rs.4000/- per month from his Bicycle Sales And Service Shop. It was further submitted that on the date of death, the deceased was aged about 21 years. Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel for Respondent no.1 submits that so far age of the deceased is concerned, the learned tribunal has taken note of the F.I.R. i.e. Ext.1 as well as Postmortem Report(Ext.2) showing the age of the deceased as 19 years. So far as monthly income as claimed by the claimants is concerned, it was argued that it was duty on the part of the claimants to adduce admissible evidence before the tribunal in support of the income of the deceased. Only on the basis of oral statement as well as affidavit, the claimed income was not required to be noticed by the learned tribunal. Learned counsel for the Respondent no.1 submits that in view of the minimum rate of wages as per Schedule Employment, 2006, the learned tribunal has rightly awarded compensation, which requires no interference. It was further submitted that the claimants themselves had claimed Rs.3 Lacs in their claim petition and the learned tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs.2,64,084/-. It was further submitted that the claimed amount was paid by the Respondent no.1/ National Insurance Company Ltd. and at a belated stage the present appeal was filed. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the fact that the learned tribunal has noticed the minimum wages, which was applicable at the relevant time, the Court is of the opinion that the learned tribunal has committed no error, while passing the impugned Judgment 4 and Award. I do not find any point for interference with the impugned Judgment and Award. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected without any cost. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J. )