IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.404 of 2002 Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company, Muzaffarpur through the Branch Manager, National Insurance Corporation, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. ……………………. Appellant. Versus 1. Shanti Devi, W/O. Late Rajendra Ram. 2. Sampat Ram, S/o. Late Jai Govind Ram (Father of Deceased) 3. Sanjay Ram, Son of Late Rajendra Ram, Minor. 4. Chinta Kumari, D/o. Late Rajendra Ram, Minor. 5. Ranjoy, Son of Late Rajendra Ram, Minor. 6. Manjoy, Son of Late Rajendra Ram, Minor All minors under the guardianship of their Mother Smt. Shanti Devi. All are residents of village and P.O. Murala, P.S. Ramgarhwa, District – East Champaran. 7. Sri Madan Singh, Son of Rameshwar Singh, As Naga Road, Raxaul, East Champaran, Owner of Motor Vehicle. ………….. Respondents. ----------- 14/ 30.07.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 21.05.2002 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge – cum - Additional Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur where the claimants are the wife and children of Rejendra Ram who died due to accident of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the award granted by the Tribunal on the ground that the driver has not submitted driving license and further 2 on the ground that the amount paid was excessive and the rate of interest, i.e., 9 %, is also excessive. The miscellaneous appeal was filed in 2002 and then posted for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and after the long delay notice was issued in limitation matter as well as the case was once dismissed for default. The matter has now been placed for consideration under Order XLI, Rule 11 CPC after restoration. It appears that the compensation has been computed by taking notional income of the deceased as 15,000/- and the age of the deceased at the time of accident not exceeding 35 years and applying the multiplier of 17 according to the schedule of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant however, contended that the multiplier system should be taken into account of the victim or the dependents whichever is greater. However, from the record it appears that claimants are the wife and the children and hence the age of the junior most claimant to be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that 3 since there is no income of the deceased and hence Rs.15,000/- is higher amount and the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs.6,000/-. However, in the Act itself Rs.15,000/- has been provided the minimum income when there is no income and hence I do not find that the compensation granted to the appellant is excessive. Hence, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that part of compensation amount may be directed to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. However, no point of contributory negligence has been taken either before Tribunal or before this court is ground of appeal, the point is not available. Since the argument on behalf of the parties have been entertained and after due consideration, the impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal, no interference in the matter is required. Hence the appeal is dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)