IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.21 of 2007 1. CHAMAK LAL SINGH, S/o. late Chhedi Prasad Singh, 2. Nisha Devi w/o. Chamaklal Singh, Both r/o. village- Simroudha, P.S. Rajoun, District- Banka. ------ Appellants. Versus 1. MD.SAJJAD KHAN, s/o. Md. Mozib Khan, r/o. Mohalla-Karharia Road, P.S. & Distt. Banka. 2. Viveka Nand Singh, s/o. Shyamdeo Pd. Singh, r/o. village- Rainea (Jogdiha), P.S. Banka, District- Banka. 3. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, R.P. Road, Khalifabagh Chowk, P.S. Kotwali, District. Bhagalpur. 4. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, , 8, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata-700001. ----- Respondents. 5 04.12.2008 With the consent of both sides, this appeal was finally heard under Order 41 Rules 11 & 12 C.P.C. This appeal is by the appellant/claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation as allowed vide award dated 02.11.2006, whereby under Claim Case No.19 of 2001 the Addl. District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribuanl, Bhagalpur has allowed a claim of Rs. 84,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum pendente lite and future. The claimants were the parents of deceased Pawan Kumar Singh, the unmarried boy aged 20 years who died in a motor vehicle accident on 2 28.11.2000. The claimants’ claimed that the deceased was working as a mason and he was earning a monthly income of Rs.3,000/- and on this ground a claim of Rs.4,00,000/- was put forth before the Claims Tribunal. On the point of income the claimants and witnesses deposed that the deceased was earning daily wages of Rs.80/- to 100/- per day but the Claims Tribunal did not feel satisfied about the income as stated in the evidence of the witnesses and considered the case of the deceased as case of non-earning person and accordingly calculated notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as provided in Clause-5 (b) to the second schedule to the M.V. Act. In this case, including the claimants four witnesses were examined, who adduced their evidence that the deceased was a mason and he used to earn Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per day. Thus, the deceased was not a person who had no income at all. In such view of the matters, it was not proper for the claims tribunal to calculate the income of the deceased on notional basis taking it to be a case of non-earning person. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears just and proper to calculate income 3 of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- per annum. The second point raised by the appellant is about multiplier used in calculating the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident. The learned Claims Tribunal has mentioned in its judgment that in his deposition the C.W.4 Chamaklal Singh, the father of the deceased stated his age 55 years, hence, his age was taken 55 years and the Claims Tribunal taking the age group of 55 to 60 years applied the multiplier 8 as provided in the second schedule to the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no doubt in calculating the quantum of compensation the age of the claimant or the deceased whichever is higher has to be taken for deciding the multiplier but the decision of the age has to be taken on the date of accident or death. It was pointed out that the date of accident was 28.11.2000. In course of hearing learned counsel for the appellant produced before this Court the certified copy of the deposition of C.W.4, which shows that this witness was examined on 4.9.2002 and on that date his age was 55 years. Thus, C.W.4., who was 55 4 years on 4.9.2002, the date of his deposition would definitely be below 55 on the date of accident i.e., 28.11.2000. Thus, the age group of the claimant, for the purpose of deciding the multiplier, would be 50-55 years and, for this age group the multiplier as given in the second schedule is 11. Therefore, in this case the proper multiplier to be used is 11. Thus, Rs.24,000/- per annum, the annual income of the deceased when reduced by 1/3rd as his personal expenses would come to Rs.16,000/-. This annual income of Rs.16,000/- when multiplied by the multiplier 11 would become Rs.1,76,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has allowed a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- as loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation amount payable to the claimants come to Rs.1,80,500/-. The Claims Tribunal has already allowed interest @ 6% per annum pendente lite and future. In the memo of appeal there is no prayer for enhancement of the rate of interest. In such view of matters, the claim amount is fixed at Rs.1,80.500/- and the interest will be @ 6% per annum pendente lite and future. The amount of interim 5 compensation of Rs.50,000/- as paid earlier will be adjusted from this amount. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent and in the manner as indicated above. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)