IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.43 of 2008 BRANCH MANAGER,UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMP. LTD.& ORS Versus REENA DEVI & ORS ----------- 12. 18.05.2010. (1) Heard the learned counsels for the parties. (2) The Insurance Company has filed this Appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 27.08.2007 and 17.09.2007 respectively passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-F.T.C. II, Begusarai in M.A.C.T. Case No.41 of 2001 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,20,000/-. The claimants-respondents filed the aforesaid case praying therein for compensation on the ground that because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle No.NL-05/B-0689 accident took place as a result of which Kishore Kumar Paswan a member of Barat party died in course of treatment. It is stated that the said vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The deceased was aged about 21 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month from orchestra and tuition. (3) The appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement alleging that the claim is false. The owner filed written statement alleging that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. (4) After considering the evidences ad materials available on record, the learned Court below came to the conclusion that there is no authentic proof with regard to earning of the deceased and therefore, on the basis of minimum wages at the rate of Rs.100/- per day was calculated and on the basis of the same the learned Tribunal 2 found that the dependency of the claimant was Rs.24,000/- per year. Considering the age of the deceased to be 21 yeas, he applied multiplier of 17 and found out the just compensation. On the same Tribunal added Rs.10,000/- as consortium and Rs.2,000/- as funereal expenses. (5) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly presumed that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day. According to the learned counsel when the evidence of the income of the deceased was not reliable then the notional income should have been taken into account. (6) On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Scheduled II of the M.V. Act is only a guideline. The notional income given in the Scheduled is of the year 1994 and, therefore, it cannot be said that in these days, the labour cannot earn Rs.100/- per day. The learned counsel further submitted that while calculating the compensation, the Tribunal is to find out just compensation. In this case, the deceased was aged about 21 years and the claimants adduced oral evidence but without their being any contrary evidence adduced by the appellant, the learned Tribunal disbelieved the same but since the Tribunal awarded compensation taking into consideration the daily wage, the claimants satisfied and did not challenge the award. (7) Admittedly, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum was provided in the year 1994. The deceased was only aged about 21 years at the time of death. Even if that notional income is 3 taken into account then also it cannot be said that a person who was earning Rs.15,000/- in the year 1994, the said person could not have earned Rs.100/- in subsequent years. Admittedly, in these days, the minimum wage has been fixed at Rs.100/- per month. Moreover, as stated by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Scheduled II is only a guideline. The Tribunal has to come to a finding about just compensation. Now-a-days even unskilled labour can earn Rs.100/- per day. The learned Tribunal has granted the same. (8) In view of the above consideration, in my opinion, there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Award. (9) In the result, I find no merit in this Appeal and accordingly this Misc. Appeal is dismissed. (10) The statutory amount deposited by the appellant be transmitted to the Court below so that it may be paid to the claimants. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)