IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.283 of 2006 1. Anita Devi, widow of late Binod Munda 2. Asha Kumari (Minor), daughter of Late Binod Munda Serial No.2 is minor daughter of Late Binod Munda under the guardian ship of their mother the next friend-Anita Devi. Both permanent resident of village- Harwai, P.O. Kazma, P.S.Mandu, District-Hazaribagh. At present C/o Munni Lal Munda Village-Chamarua, P.S.Karja, District- Muzaffarpur. .. Claimants no.1 and 2…. Appellants. Versus 1. Indra Prasad, son of Bodhi Ram at Sarubera Bazar, Tand, Sarubera, Mandu, Hazaribagh Jharkhand. …. Opposite party no.1- Respondent. 2. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Club Road, Muzaffarpur. … Opposite party no.2- Respondent. For the appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For respondent no.2. : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate. ----------- 07. 19/02/2010 In this appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity `the Act’), the assail is to the award dated 28.04.2006 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case No. 244 of 2004 whereby the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,77,000/- to the appellants. 2. The résumé of facts which are necessary - 2 - for disposal of the present appeal are that the deceased Binod Munda, aged about 25 years, died in a vehicular accident and the same led to filing of a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. 3. The tribunal upon appreciating the material brought on record came to hold that the deceased had died in a motor accident; that the driver of the vehicle had a valid licence on the date of accident; that the claimants had not been able to prove the income of the deceased as claimed; that regard being had to the age of the deceased and the dependency factor, a sum of Rs. 1,77,000/- inclusive of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses would be the just compensation and that the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner. 4. Being dissatisfied with the award the claimants have preferred this appeal. It is urged by Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants that the assessment of income done by the tribunal is wholly erroneous inasmuch as there were enough evidence and material on record to show that the deceased was working in a shop as a salesman and his monthly income was Rs. 3500/-. It is contended by him that - 3 - he was sustaining the family and there were future prospects but the same have not been taken into consideration. 5. Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the insurer submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 6. To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar, I have carefully perused the award passed by the tribunal. On a scrutiny of the same it is manifest that the tribunal has expressed the view that the claimants have not been able to prove that the deceased was working as a salesman. It has taken into consideration the notional income per year. 7. Regard being had to the fact that the deceased was 25 years of age and was sustaining the family I am disposed to think he would be earning not less than Rs. 2700/- per month and his contribution to the family after deduction of one third expenses on self shall be Rs. 1800/- per month. Regard being had to the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 would be applicable. Thus, the total amount of compensation on this score would come to Rs. 1800 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 3,67,200/-. To this sum, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be added towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate and - 4 - Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and, thus, the total amount would come to Rs. 3,67,200 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 2,500 + Rs. 2000 = Rs. 3,81,700/- (Three lacs eighty one thousand seven hundred). The differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the application before the tribunal till the date of deposit of the said sum before the tribunal. The tribunal shall disburse the differential amount keeping in view the law laid down in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, A.I.R. 1994 SC 1631. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award passed by the tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Dilip (Dipak Misra, C.J.)