IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.127 of 2003 1. The National Insurance Company ,Kachhari Road, Begusarai, through the Manager, National Insurance Company, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-1. Versus 1. Sunaina Devi W/O Late Ram Sunder Singh @ Ghoghan Singh, Vill. Madhurapur Bichla Tola, P.S. Teghra, Dist. Begusarai ----------- 11 08.12.2008 This appeal by the National Insurance Company, Begusarai is against the judgment dated 25.11.2002 and award dated 02.12.2002 of the IV Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Begusaria passed in Claim Case No. 24 of 2000 whereby a compensation of Rs.2,00000/- (Two lakhs) together with interest at the rate of 10% from one month after the date of award, if not paid, has been allowed. Respondent no.2 Sunaina Devi as well as two sons of the deceased Ram Sunder Singh @ Ghoghan Singh had lodged the claim case claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,60,000/-( Four Lakhs Sixty thousand). It was stated by the claimants that the deceased was carrying his wheat bags on trolley No.BR- 9A-1479 which was being driven by tractor No. BR-9A 1478. The deceased was sitting on the wheat bags. Due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver and also an attempt to save one scooter on the road the tractor over turned and the trailer also tilted, as a result of which the deceased fell down from the trailer and the wheat bags fell upon him (deceased) and due to that he (deceased) was pressed under the wheat bags and died of the injuries subsequently. The tractor and trailer were said to have been 2 insured by the appellant insurance company. With respect to the accident Barauni zero mile P.S. Case No. 149/2000 was instituted. The F.I.R. of the case was proved as Exhibit-1. The certified copy of charge sheet was proved as Exhibit-2, which showed that the tractor driver was Arjun Mahto whose driving license was 946F issued by D.T.O. Muzzafarpur. The claimants had filed the copy of Insurance Policy, marked as Exhibit-3, with respect to the insurance of the tractor and trailer by the appellant Insurance Company, and, it showed that the insurance coverage was for the period 01.06.1999 to 31.05.2000, and, thus, it covered the date of accident, i.e. 15.05.2000. The photo copy of the driving license of the tractor driver Arjun Mahto was also proved as Exhibit-4. The registration Certificate, with respect to the tractor and trolley were proved as Exhibit-5 and 5/1 respectively. The claimants/ respondent no.1 also proved her residential certificate marked as Exhibit-7. The claimants claimed that the deceased was an agriculturist and he was also doing business of dealing in milk and he used to earn six thousand per month. The deceased was stated to be 25 years. The claimants/ respondent no.1 examined herself as A.W.1 and she stated about the accident and the death of the deceased having been caused due to the accident. She also stated that the deceased was aged 25 years and he was earning monthly in-come of Rs. Six thousand. The other two witnesses A.W.2 and 3 were the 3 witnesses, who were traveling on the tractor at the time of accident and they also testified the accident taking place in the aforesaid manner and the death of the deceased having been caused due to his being pressed under the bags fallen on him. On consideration of the materials, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly in-come of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 15,00 per month. This was the lowest income which the Tribunal could have assessed. Thus, after deducting 1/3 of the in-come for personal expenses of the deceased, his annual in-come came to Rs. 12,000/-. The deceased was aged 25 years. Taking multiplier of 15, the compensation amount was calculated at Rs. 1,80,000/-( one lakh eighty thousand). Learned counsel for the respondent argued that according to the table, multiplier of 18 is applicable in case of the age group 25 to 30 years. But the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross-examined for enhancement of compensation. Hence, nothing can be done, at this stage, in that regard. The learned Claims Tribunal has also allowed Rs. 20,000 /- (twenty thousand) towards loss of dependency. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this amount of compensation which was allowed towards loss of dependency is excessive. But in this regard, it is found that any leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act was not obtained by the appellant from the Claims Tribunal. Hence, the appellant cannot be permitted to challenge the quantum of compensation at this stage. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent/Claimants submitted that the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of this appeal may be sent to the Claims Tribunal for payment to the claimants towards the amount of compensation allowed to them. Learned counsel for the appellant does not put any objection to this prayer. Therefore, Office will send the statutory amount to the concerned Claims Tribunal for payment to the claimants/respondents. Thus, herein, I find that the total compensation of Rs. two lakhs as allowed by the learned Claims Tribunal is justified and proper. The rate of interest as allowed from the date of one month after the date of Tribunal’s award is also justified. In such view of the matters, I find no ground to make any interference with the impugned award. Therefore, the award as passed by the Claims Tribunal is sustained. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( C.M.Prasad, J.)