IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.130 of 2006 DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL COMPANY LTD. Motijheel Muzaffarpur. ----------(Opposite Party No.2) ------ Appellant. Versus 1. SACHINDRA THAKUR, S/o – Ram Ugrah Thakur, Village – Berua, P.S. – Gaighat, P.O. – Ibrahimpur, District – Muzaffarpur. ------------Claimant – Respondent 1st Set. 2. Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh, S/o – not known to the appellant. (Owner of the Vehicle). -------- Opposite Party No.1 ----- Respondent 2nd Set. ------- For the appellant : Ms. Seema, Adv. Shri Prakash Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents : Shri Ajay Kumar Pd. Singh, Adv. ******* 22. 15.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent no.1, the claimant. There is none appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2, the owner of the vehicle involved. With consent of learned counsels, present, this appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 20th December 2005 passed by 6th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, M.V. Claim Case No. 146/2003. 3. It is undisputed that respondent no.1 brought the case before the claim tribunal for being compensated to the loss suffered by him in accident, wherein he had to lose his leg and capability to continue in his employment as a driver. The court below on basis of salary structure of the applicant arrived at the conclusion that he was entitled for sum of Rs. 8,17,993/- which - 2 - arrived after deduction of 35% from total income payable after use of multiplier 13 in his yearly income. 4. The main grievance against the findings of the court below has contended by learned counsel for the appellant is that claim tribunal has calculated the amount payable to the claimant on basis of his total monthly emoluments without making any deduction which ought to have been done under law. It was also contended that since the applicant has already been adjusted by his employer (Union of India) and retained him in the service of course in Junior Clerical Category on basis thereof, it was contended that in fact there was no loss of income accrued to the claimant so the entire calculation of the claim tribunal is baseless. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant respondent by placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Indira Shrivastav and Ors. reported in 2008(2) SCC 763; K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2008(8) SCC 518; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Verma reported in 2009(2) SCC 712; Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121; submitted that the claimant was entitled for full compensation without any deduction and no deductions from his monthly income has contended on behalf of the appellant was required under law. 6. After going through the decisions referred to - 3 - above and the provisions as contemplated in Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. My attention was further drawn towards the salary chart of the claimant respondent no. 1 as annexed with memo of appeal as Annexure – 2, which indicates that the monthly income of the respondent no. 1 was Rs. 8067/- out of which a sum of Rs. 30 was being contributed towards Group Insurance Scheme, Rs. 600/- towards General Provident Fund and Rs. 2000/- was being deducted against repayment of advance taken by him from the G.P. Fund. Here on the basis thereof, learned counsel for the appellant confined his submissions for deduction of Rs. 630/- only from monthly income of the claimant as being the investment returnable by employer. 7. In response learned counsel for the respondent no.1 instantly agreed for such deduction. 8. In view of the above agreement, a sum of Rs. 7,560/- to be deducted from sum of Rs. 96,804/- the amount calculated by the claim tribunal as yearly income for use of multiplier 13. The amount comes to Rs. 89,244/- and after use of multiplier 13 it comes to Rs. 11,60,172/-, 65% of which comes to the tune of Rs. 7,54,111/- = 7,55,000/-. 9. Taking into consideration, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the accident taking place on 07.01.2003, i.e. more than seven years have already lapsed. The appellant i.e. insurer is hereby directed to make payment of the above sum i.e. 7,55,000/- with interest as awarded by the - 4 - claim tribunal deducting the amount paid at the earliest preferably two months. With the above modification in the award, this appeal stands dismissed. Simultaneously, statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited with the appeal is directed to be remitted to the court below through a demand draft in the name of claimant respondent no.1 towards payment of compensation. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)