IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.615 of 2010 Widow Seema Singh @ Seema Kumari, Wife of Late Pramod Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Bahasi Saidpur, P.S. Jandha, District-Vaishali ---------------- Applicant/Appellant Versus 1. Dilip Kumar, Son of Ramchandra Chaudhary, Village- Khilawat, P.S. Bidupur, District-Vaishali (Owner of Tata 407) BR- 01B/8721). 2. Birju rai Son of Sarju Rai Village- Lawapur,P.S. Mahuar, District- Vaishali ( Driver of Tata-407) 3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through the Branch Manager, Yadav Chawk, Cinema Road, Hajipur ( Vaishali) ( Insurer of Tata-407) 4. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. through the Branch Manager, Ramashish Chowk, Hajipur, Vaishali ( Insurer of Hero Honda Motorcycle) ------------- Opp.Parties/Respondents 5. Ayush Kumar S/O Late Pramod Kumar Singh 6. Sanjana Kumari D/O Late Pramod Kumar Singh 7. Musmat Lalmani Devi Wife of Late Ram Sarekh Singh Performa O.P. No.5 & 6 are minor under natural guardianship of mother appellant. All are residents of Village-Bahasi, Saidpur, P.S. Jandha, District-Vaishali ---- Claimant/ performa Respondents ---------------------------------- For the appellant- S/Sri Abhay Kumar Singh no.1 Bharat Bhushan and Sri Rakesh Behari Singh, Advocates For Respondent no.3: Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, Advocate For Respondent no.4: Sri Bimlesh Kumar, Advocate --------------------------------- 09 12-09-2011 Heard Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.3/ National Insurance Company Ltd. and Sri Bimlesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.4/ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Despite the fact that Respondent no.1 has entered his appearance through his counsel, at the time of hearing, none appeared on his behalf. 2 The claimant/ appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988( hereinafter referred to as the “M.V. Act”) against the Judgment dated 23.03.2010 passed by the Claim Tribunal , Vaishali at Hajipur in Claim Case no.13 of 2006 only to the extent of questioning the order for multiplier adopted by the Claim Tribunal. In a road accident, on 23.05.2003, the husband of the claimant/appellant died. The husband of the appellant was a pillion rider on a motorcycle and the motorcycle was dashed from back side by one Tata-407 Maxi having Registration No.BR-1B/8721. The Tata-407 i.e. the offending vehicle was insured by Respondent no.3. Since the appeal has been preferred only against the multiplier, the Court is of the opinion that there is no need to discuss the merit and fact of the case in detail. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the husband of the appellant was aged about 32 years and in view of Schedule II of the M.V.Act in the case, multiplier should have been 17. However, the learned court below has adopted multiplication of 10, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. It has further been argued that the learned tribunal , while adopting multiplier of 10 , had heavily relied on a Single Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2000(4) PLJR 109 ( The National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Surjit Kaur & Ors.) It was argued that the ratio of the said case was not exactly to give a total go bye to the statutory provision and, as such, the learned Claim Tribunal was required to adopt multiplier of 17 as per Schedule II of the M.V.Act. The Claim Tribunal had directed the 3 Respondent no.3, insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay compensation amount. Of course, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. being insurer of the Hero Honda Motorcycle, on which the deceased was travelling , was impleaded party in the claim case, but the compensation amount was directed to be paid by Respondent no.3/ National Insurance Company Ltd. Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the Respondent no.3/ National Insurance Company Ltd. has strongly opposed the prayer of the appellant. It was submitted that in motor vehicle accident cases, compensation would not be granted as bonanza, but considering all other requirements, the Claim Tribunal is required to pass order and, accordingly, the learned Claim Tribunal has rightly considered the multiplier of 10, which requires no interference. It was further submitted that the compensation amount, which was awarded by the Claim Tribunal, was already paid to the claimant with 6 % interest without any protest made by the claimant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that once the statute provides that a thing is to be done in a particular manner, then that has been done in the same manner and not in any other way. There is a specific provision in Schedule II of the M.V.Act. As per Schedule II, in case the age of the victim or the deceased is in between 30 and 35, the multiplier is prescribed as 17. In that view of the matter, following the statutory provision, the Claim Tribunal was required to take into account the multiplier of 17, since the deceased was aged about 32 years. 4 In view of the facts and circumstances, the multiplier adopted by the court below is directed to be modified and it should be 17. The matter is remitted back to the court below to calculate the compensation amount taking into account multiplier of 17 and thereafter prepare an appropriate award within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, with above direction the appeal stands allowed and remitted back to the court below. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)