IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.386 of 2008 1. ANITA DEVI, wife of late Arbind Kumar, 2. Saloni Kumari, m/d/o late Arbind Kumar, 3. Simmi Kumari, m/d/o late Arbind Kumar and 4. Nikhil Kumar, m/d/o late Arbind Kumar, Appellants no. 2 to 4, all minor daughters and son are under guardian of their mother well wisher and next friend, All residents of village – Pokharpur, P.S. Giriak, Distt. – Nalanda – Applicants / Claimants ………………………………….... Appellants. Versus 1. SRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, 1(a) Surendra Kumar and 1(b) Surendra Kumar Singh, owners of Mahindra Tempo (Pick up van) No. Br- 21B-4872 At Pokharpur, P.S. Giriak, Dist. Nalanda, 2. Sri Ansar Ahmad, son of Sri Abdul Hassan, Driver of Mahindra Tempo (Pick Up Van) No. BR- 4872 At Bakra P.S. Giriak, District Nalanda and 3. National Insurance Company Ltd. through the Branch Manager Branch Office, Gauri Niwas, Mathuria Mohalla, Biharsharif, Distt. – Nalanda …… Opposite Parties ….. Respondents. ----------- For the appellants:- Mr. R.B. Prasad, Advocate. For the National Insurance Company:-Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, Advocate. ----------- 7. 19.02.2010. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity `the Act’) preferred by the appellants, the legal representatives of late Arbind Kumar, challenging the award dated 15.04.2006 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Claim Tribunal, Nalanda, Biharsharif in M.A.C.T. Case No. 17/06 whereby the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- towards 2 compensation regard being had to the fact that at the time of death the deceased was 30 years old and his average income was Rs. 12,000/- per year. The aforesaid amount of compensation included the amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium. On a perusal of the award passed by the tribunal it is evident that the tribunal has held that the deceased had died in a vehicular accident; that the age of the deceased gets corroboration from the post mortem report; that the claimants have not been able to prove the income of the deceased; and that they would be entitled to the sum as has been mentioned hereinabove. Thus, the only cavil that arises in this appeal pertains to quantum. On a scrutiny of the material brought on record, it is evident that the deceased was married and had three minor children. Evidence was adduced that he was a Munshi with a contractor, but the said evidence has not been accepted. An effort was made to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. The tribunal while not accepting the same had determined the yearly 3 income at Rs. 12,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the finding given by the tribunal with regard to the income is absolutely unacceptable inasmuch as the deceased was 30 years old and was maintaining a family of four members. Regard being had to the totality of the circumstances I am disposed to think that the deceased would be contributing at least Rs.1500/- per month to sustain his family. Thus, the yearly contribution would be Rs. 1500/- x 12 = Rs. 18,000/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier 17 would get attracted. Hence, the amount on this score would come to Rs. 18,000/- x 17 = Rs. 3,06,000/-. To the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is added for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the amount of compensation in total would come to Rs. 3,18,000/-. The differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the application before the tribunal till the date of deposit of the same. The tribunal shall disburse the differential amount 4 keeping in view the law laid down in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, A.I.R. 1994 SC 1631. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award passed by the tribunal is accordingly modified. There shall be no order as to costs. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. )