IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.384 of 2003 1. Dr.Meet Verma, son of Late Dr. Tejendra Nath Verma 2. Satya Priyam, 3. Satya Vrat, Serial Nos.2 and 3 are minor daughters of Dr. Meet Verma under the guardianship of their father Dr. Meet Verma, the natural guardian and next friend. All are resident of Mohalla- Raghunath Path, R.P.S.College Road Saguna, P.S.Danapur, District-Patna. At present residing at Flat No.6078/1, Sector-D, Pocket-6, DDA Flats, Vansant Kunj, New Delhi-11 0070. …….Claimants no.1 to 3-Appellants. Versus 1. Afzal Abdullah, son of Md. Abdullah resident of Radha Bhawan, LCT Ghat, Mainpura, P.S. Budha Colony, District-Patna. ….. Opposite Party no.1-Respondent. 2. Sri Raja Ram Manjhi, son of Mitthu Manjhi resident of Mainpura, P.S.Budha Colony, District-Patna. (Driver of the vehicle). …..Opposite party no.2-Respondent. 3. Branch Manaer, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj. …..Opposite party no.3-Respondent. For the appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For respondent no.3 : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate. ----------- 09. 19/02/2010 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the insurer on whom the liability has been fastened. On consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally heard. - 2 - 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), against the award dated 28.07.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge XI-cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patna ( for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case no.62 of 1993 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,69,916/- as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, namely Dr. Neena Sinha who was working as a Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Krishnagarh, P.S.Barhara Block in the district of Ara. 3. The facts relating to causation of accident, the entitlement of the appellants and such other ancillary aspects need not be stated because the claimants have come up in appeal questioning the quantum. It is urged by Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.4856/- which was the salary component of the deceased though she was 32 years and was likely to get increments and promotion. That apart, it is contended by him she was having a clinic and at that point of time non-practicing allowance was not given. - 3 - 4. Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the insurer supported the award and contended, inter alia, that the award has been passed in just and proper manner. 5. To appreciate the aforesaid submissions, I have carefully perused the award passed by the tribunal. There is no dispute over the factum that the deceased was working as a Medical officer in the said Primary Health Centre. She was aged 32 years. The claimants are the husband and two minor children. 6. Regard being had to the future prospects and taking note of the finding recorded by the tribunal that she was having a clinic, I am inclined to think that the monthly income of the deceased would not be less than Rs.6,000/-, deducting 1/3rd towards expenses on herself, the contribution to the family is determined at Rs.4,000/-. As she was aged 32 years, I am inclined to apply the multiplier of ‘17’. Thus, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 17= Rs.8,16,000/-. To the aforesaid a sum Rs.10,000/- is added towards consortium and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, in toto, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.8,28,000/-. The differential sum shall - 4 - carry 6 per cent interest from the date of presentation of the application before the tribunal till the satisfaction of the award. Needless to emphasize the other directions given by the tribunal remain untouched. 7. 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. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.)