IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA NO.110 OF 2007 1. KAILASIYA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SHYAM NANDAN SAH 2. ARBIND KUMAR SAH, SON OF LATE SHYAM NANDAN SAH 3. INKU KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF LATE SHYAM NANDAN SAH 4. DHARMENDRA KUMAR, SON OF LATE SHYAM NANDAN SAH SERIAL NO. 3 AND 4 ARE MINOR SON AND DAUGHTER OF LATE SHYAM NANDAN SAH UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER KAILASIYA DEVI-APPELLANT NO. 1. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOVIND BAHILWARA, POLICE STATION SARAIYA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR ………… ………………..APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. NAND KISHORE SAH, SON OF RAM CHANDRA SAH, VILLAGE PAKRI PAKOHI, POLICE STATION KARJA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AT MOTIJHEEL, MUZAFFARPUR. …...... ……………………RESPONDENTS ****** FOR THE APPELLANTS :- MR. MUKESH PRASAD SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS :- MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE ******** 6 22.01.2009 The appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of award given to him by the District Judge – cum- Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur. The facts regarding the accident are not disputed by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company only disputes the salary or the amount that the deceased earned during his lifetime. The evidence with respect to this issue has been discussed by the Tribunal at paragraph 10. It has been stated on behalf of the claimant that the husband of appellant no. 1 2 and father of appellants 2 to 4 was working in a mill. The owner of the mill has been examined as AW 5 and he has deposed that the deceased was getting the monthly salary of Rs. 3000/-. The deceased used to work in the flour mill of AW 5 and was performing the duty of running the machine of the mill as per Exhibit-1. AW 5 has further stated in his cross- examination that his flour mill is not registered and he does not maintain a register with respect to the payment made to the persons working under him. AW 5 has also stated that he earns about Rs. 200-300 per day from his mill. Therefore, perhaps the Tribunal has rightly believed that the deceased was not earning Rs. 3000/- by way of salary from the said flour mill. The counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that if the salary of the deceased cannot be ascertained then the Court should calculate his income treating it Rs. 1500/- (notional income) provided under Section 163A under Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Counsel for the claimants submits that this Court should take into account the fact that the deceased was a skilled labour which has not been disbelieved by the Court and as such would be earning at least Rs. 75/- per day. 3 I find that the submissions made on behalf of the appellant are reasonable. The Court can not attribute a notional income to the deceased as it has clearly come in the evidence that he was working as a skilled labour in a flour mill. Accordingly, treating the deceased to have been earning Rs. 75/- per day his yearly income would come to Rs. 23,400/-. Substracting one third conventional amount, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 15,600. Applying the multiple of 13 as has been done by the Tribunal, the total amount payable to the claimant would be Rs. 2,02,800/- along with 6 per cent interest which would be payable from the date of filing of the claim till its realization. The appellant would also be entitled to Rs. 9,500/- towards consortium , general expenses and loss of estate as awarded by the Court below. Needless to say the interim amount granted to the claimants will be deducted from the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs. 2,02,800/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. ANAND (Sheema Ali Khan, J. )