IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.645 of 2000 1. Ramdeo Sah, S/o. Late Bachan Sah, Resident of village – Tetariya, P.S. – Rajapur, District – East Champaran. 2. Smt. Fulmati Devi, W/o. Ramdeo Sah, Resident of village – Tetariya, P.S. – Rajepur, District – East Champaran. ……………. Claimant – Appellants. Versus 1. Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office New India Insurance Building No. 87 M.G. Road Fort Bombay – 400023. 2. Harish Prasad, Driver, S/o. Lakhan Bhagat, Resident of village – Gheghwa, P.S. – Madhubani, District – East Champaran. 3. Kumari Ragini Thakur, W/o. Kaushal Kishore Thakur, Resident of Mohalla – Belbanawa – Motihari, P.S. – Town, District – East Champaran. …………. Opp. Party ……… Respondent. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Pandit Jee Pandey, Advocate. Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Mr. Nawnit Kumar Tiwary. For the Respondents. : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate. 03/ 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 04.09.2000 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Claim Case No. 04 of 1991 by which the appellants, who are the father and mother of the deceased have been granted compensation to the tune of Rs.61,200/- for the death of their son, who died in motor accident. However, the order has been challenged only on the ground of quantum of compensation. 3. From perusal of the record it is apparent that the deceased was 25 years old and used to prepare sweets and sell it and the claimant are the father and mother of the deceased and deceased died out of the accident when Tata Maxi dashed the 2 deceased and causing his death. 4. The claimant filed a petition for compensation and the Tribunal hold death due to the accident by motor vehicle and claimant are entitled to award from insurer but fix the amount of compensation as Rs.61,200/- taking income of the deceased as Rs.300/- per month. 5. However, it is apparent that the Tribunal has assessed the income as Rs.300/- per month on the basis of the income stated in claim petition. However, from perusal of record it appears that the appellant filed a petition after filing of the claim petition for amendment in the claim petition that Rs.300/- has wrongly been typed instead of Rs.3,000/- but the said amendment petition was rejected against which a civil revision was preferred but during the pendency of the civil revision the final order passed and against final order this miscellaneous appeal has been filed. The Civil Revision No. 2144 of 2000 and M.A. heard together at the time of admission of this miscellaneous appeal and by order dated 30.01.2003 the civil revision application held to be infructuous with observation that it will open for the appellant to challenge the aforesaid order in appeal and the appeal was admitted for final hearing. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted 3 that in the claim petition the claim was made of Rs.3,000/- per month. However, it was wrongly typed as Rs.300/- and so the annual income was assessed Rs.300/- per month. However, the accident took place in the year 1990 and the claim petition was filed and in the said claim petition an amendment petition was filed on 06.07.2000 that the amount of income of the deceased was Rs.3000/- per month but the same was rejected. 7. However, it is apparent that even in 1990 the income of the appellant computed as Rs. 300/- per month is excessively low. However, the Tribunal assessed the income as Rs.300/- per month which can neither be just nor reasonable. However, the income of the appellant has been deemed to be Rs.300/- per month. However, in the judgment there is no mention about any evidence about the income of deceased and income assessed @ Rs.300/- per month is excessively low which is neither just nor reasonable and hence applying the general principle or the Schedule in case of present nature, even assuming a case of no income Rs.15,000/- can well be assessed as the yearly income and this is the minimum that can well be assessed as income of the deceased even taken on touch stone of minimum wage is also more than Rs.15,000/- per month. However, at the time of the death the victim was 25 years of age and hence it can be 4 well assumed and assessed the age of the mother as 50 years and hence taking into consideration the age of the mother as 50 years, the multiplier of 11 is well applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence the amount can well be assessed as Rs.1,65,200/-. However, considering the deduction for the personal expenses it comes to be about Rs.1,10,000/- and out of this Rs.1,10,000/- amount due Rs.25,000/- paid hence entitled for compensation of Rs.85,000/-. The lower court has granted interest @ 12% per annum hence the appellant is entitled to 12% but the learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that amount has been awarded given by the Tribunal has been paid but the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that so far his knowledge he has been only paid Rs.25,000/-. Hence in the fact and circumstance of the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal has not been encashed in his account then the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% as granted by the Tribunal on the entire amount held due to the tune of Rs.85,000/-. However, if the amount of compensation decided by the Tribunal has been paid with interest and amount has been received and encashed in the account of the claimant then extra amount paid as per this order shall be paid with interest @ 9 % per annum on the rest of the 5 amount to be paid from the date of the petition to the date of receipt of the amount to be payable within two months. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)