IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.468 of 2006 1. KIRAN DEVI @ KIREN DEVI, WIFE OF LATE ABHAY KUMAR @ PREM KUMAR 2. BITTU KUMAR, MINOR SON OF LATE ABHAY KUMAR @ PREM KUMAR 3. SWEETI KUMARI, MINOR DAUGHTER OF LATE ABHAY KUMAR @ PREM KUMAR 4. JAG NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF LATE JHAPESHI MAHTO 5. BASANTI DEVI, WIFE OF JAG NARAYAN SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PIR BADDAUNA, POLICE STATION DANIYAWAN, DISTRICT PATNA ………(CLAIMANTS)…….APPELLANTS Versus 1.GIRISH KUMAR, SON OF LATE PARMESHWAR SINGH, OWNER AND DRIVER OF TREKKER NO. BR-1P—2565, RESIDENT OF GOVINDPUR DARIYA, POLICE STATION FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA 2.THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RANCHI ROAD, LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BUILDING, BIHAR SHARIF, DISTRICT NALANDA …….(OPPOSITE PARTIES)…..RESPONDENTS FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. RAVI BHUSHAN PRASAD, 1ST, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. DURGESH KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE ----------- 14/- 06.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 16.09.2006 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif by which claim of Rs. 2, 13,000/- in favour of the applicant no. 1 has been granted. The claimants are the appellants and the claim of the appellants is that the husband of appellant no. 1 Abhay Kumar aged about 30 years working as a Film Distributor having monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- per month, met with a road accident by a Trakker bearing registration no. BR-1P-2565 by which he succumbed to injury due to rash and negligent driving of the driver 2 of the vehicle and the Tribunal held that the insurance company is liable to pay Rs. 2,13,000/-. The claimants are the appellants have only challenged the quantum of compensation and submits that the quantum fixed for compensation is less than what ought to have been fixed and further that no interest has been paid for the period from the date of filing of the claim case to the date of order but it has been ordered that in case of non-payment, 12% penal interest could be charged from the date of order. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that though the appellants claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/-, but in the evidence the witnesses have deposed that the husband of appellant was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and the wife of the deceased deposed that the deceased was paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to her for family expenses and hence contended that the amount of Rs. 1,500/- computed as the monthly income is less. The learned counsel for the respondents insurance company, however, contended that the claimant claims to be working in film distribution company, but no paper had been filed regarding working in the film distribution company, nor any document regarding his salary status has been filed to suggest his earning nor any material has been brought on record about the status of the deceased regarding his qualification and ability and hence the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved in view of the fact that though in the claim petition the income of the deceased is stated to be 3,000/- per month, whereas in the evidence the witnesses had stated that the victim was earning a salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month and hence their 3 evidence has rightly been disbelieved. The learned counsel for the insurance company further contended that the grant of interest is discretionary from date of petition to date of order and the Tribunal did not granted the interest for the period, but pay a penal interest at the rate of interest 12% from the date of order till the date which has already been paid by the Tribunal. Hence on the respective submission of the parties the question for consideration is whether claimant is entitle to any enhancement in quantum of compensation, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest from the date of the petition to the date of order. Taking the first point under consideration the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, in the evidence the witnesses stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and it is stated that he was working in the film distribution company. However, no cheat of paper has been filed about the working of the victim in the company and learned counsel for the appellants has contended that decision reported in 2009 (4) SCC 355 tribunal accessed income as 1000/- per month and out of it 500/- deducted for personal expenses, High Court access as 2000/- per month, but Supreme Court finally under facts and circumstances held income of deceased as 1,500/- per month. Similarly, in decisions reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 1 in almost same and similar situation, the income of the deceased had been assessed at Rs.1,500/- per month and hence the assessment of 1,500/- per month in the case is just reasonable hence I do not find any merit in 4 the submission that income of the deceased is excessive low. So far, the next question for consideration is concerned no interest has been paid on the amount by the Trial Court when it is held that the claimant is entitled for compensation. However, the claimants claim for interest on compensation shall deem to be due from the date of application till the money is paid. The plaintiff is entitled for the interest and hence it is hereby ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of Rs. 9% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount. However, the interest if already paid to the claimant is realization of the claim as ordered by tribunal shall be deducted and the interest shall be adjusted after computing the interest due and this amount shall be paid within two months. Accordingly, this appeal is stand disposed of. Praveen ( Gopal Prasad, J.)