IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.413 of 2005 AHILYA DEVI, wife of Narayan Mahto, resident of village – Maheshpur (Surjgarha), P.S. – Piri Bazar, District – Lakhisarai. ------- (Claimant) ---Appellant. Versus 1. TUNTUN SINGH, son of Late Dinesh Prasad Singh, resident of village – hapur, P.S. – Begusarai, District – Begusarai,--- Judgment Debtor. 2. Ramasish Paswan, son of Dhaneshwar Paswan, resident of village – Tilath, P.S. – Barauni, District – Begusarai, -- Driver. ---- Respondent 1st set. 3. Smt. Anita Kumari, Widow of Late Kumod Kumar Sinha, resident of village – Mahespur, P.S. - Piribazar(Surjgarha), District – Lakhisarai(Munger). ------Claimant—Respondent 2nd Set. ------- For the Appellant : Sri A.P.Choudhary, Adv. For the Respondent no.3 : Sri Arjun Pd. Singh, Adv. Smt. Manju Kumar, Adv. ***** 17. 28.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent no.3. None appeared on behalf of other respondents no. 1 and 2. This appeal has been preferred against order dated 4th September 1996 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, cum claim Tribunal, Munger, in claim Case No. 28/1990, filed by appellant and respondent no.3 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle, seeking compensation against death of Kumod Kumar Sinha on 17.04.1990 in a road accident involving a Truck bearing Registration No. B.R.I.-6111 belonging to respondent no.1 and given by respondent no. 2 awarded a sum of Rs. - 2 - 57,600/- with interest giving rise to this appeal. As it appears from the impugned order and submissions made by learned counsels, the deceased was an student of Post Graduation and claimants, respectively appellant and respondent no.3 are his mother and widow. The deceased had no income, though, as submitted having good academic career. The vehicle in question was not insured but other facts regarding involvement of the vehicle in accident and rash and negligent driving of the driver etc. remained uncontroverted. This appeal has been preferred simply for enhancement of the amount so awarded. My attention was drawn towards para 10 of the impugned order, wherein it has been held on consideration of academic career etc. that there could be no presumption that the deceased could get government or private job etc. with good earning, however, in absence of any income, it was presumed that he could have spended Rs. 300/- per month towards his family after meeting his personal expenditures. Normally, in such a case, it is considered that deceased had personal expenditure up to 1/3rd of his total earning and 2/3rd being spended - 3 - towards other family members/dependents, on that basis monthly income of the deceased as presumed and calculated by the claim tribunal become Rs. 450/- per annum i.e. Rs. 15/- per day. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance upon notification no. 5/M.W.401/2003 L&E- 223 dated 20.01.2004; submitted that the minimum wages of even unskilled labours are Rs. 68/- per day, but, at the same time, learned counsel for the appellant failed to consider that this notification was issued in the year 2004, whereas accident took place on 17.04.1990 and if the deceased’s income is to be considered as to unskilled labour, the notification if any, relating to the minimum wages prevailing on the date of the death of the deceased alone is applicable none else. In this regard notification no. S.O. 911-15, dated 15th September 1988; which was subsequently amended in the year 1991 is applicable. Such notifications have prescribed different amount of unskilled labours in different departments ranging from 496.75 paise per month to 568.50 per month and for persons in the category of class IIIrd employee, the said notifications - 4 - privides monthly income ranging from 604.25 paise to 723.75 paise. On such basis even the maximum monthly income of unskilled labour is assumed to be income of deceased at best and it goes to Rs. 568.50 per month after deducting 1/3rd from the same as personal expenditure of the deceased, his contributions towards the dependents mother and wife will come to Rs. 379 = 380, contrary to it. Claim Tribunal has assumed the same as Rs. 200/- There is no dispute as regard to multiplier of 16 adopted by the Claim Tribunal and if yearly income of deceased 380 x 12 = 4,560.00 is multiplied by 16, it comes to Rs. 72,960.00 = 73,000.00, and owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the above amount with interest as awarded by the Claim Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned order and award of the Claim Tribunal is modified to the extent that amount awarded is calculated at Rs. 73,000.00 instead of 57,600.00. With the above modification in the impugned order, this appeal stands disposed of. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) - 5 -