IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No. 178 of 2006. 1. Smt. Abha Pathak, wife of Late Vinay Kumar Pathak, Resident of Chopra Bazar, Police Station-Janki Nagar, District-Purnea, 2. Sri Vivekanand Priyadarshi, aged about 12 years, minor son of Late Vinay Kumar Pathak, 3. Neha Kumari, daughter of Late Vinay Kumar Pathak, aged about 10 years. Both the minors are represented through their mother, natural guardian and friend Petitioner no.1 in this case. …. Claimants-appellants. Versus 1. Nageshwar Kumar, son of S.P.Chaudhary, resident of Village-Singheshwar, Police Station- Singheshwar, District-Madhepur (owner of Truck No.AXK-1331). 2. Manoj Kumar Singh, son of Ramdeo Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-Routa, Police Station-Sour Bazar, District-Saharsa, owner of Tata Maxi-407 Bus No.BR- 19/4203. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Saharsa Branch, Saharsa (Insurer of Truck No. AXK-1331). 4. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., having its Branch Office, Purnia Near Bishwanath Service Station, N.H.31, Purnia (Insurer of Tata Maxi Bus No.-BR- 19/4203). …. Opposite parties- Respondents. For the appellants : Mrs. Anjana Mishra, Advocate. For Insurance Companies : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate. ----------- 06. 19.02.2010. In this appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity `the Act’), the assail is to the award dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge-1-cum-Additional Motor Vehicle Accident 2 Claims Tribunal-1, Purnia in Claim Case No. 56 of 1994 / 3 of 1999. 2. The facts in brief are that the claimants- appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 19,68,400/- on the ground that the husband of the appellant no. 1 and father of other appellants died in a vehicular accident on 16.07.1994. The deceased Vinay Kumar Pathak, as pleaded, was in Government service and aged about 38 years. On the date of the accident, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 4035/- per month. It was pleaded in the application that while he was travelling in the Tata Maxi Bus No. BR- 19/4203 from Purnia to Saharsa, near Islampur Bhokraha at a culvert, the truck bearing No. AXK/1331 coming from opposite direction had a head-on collision with the aforesaid Tata Maxi Bus. The drivers of the bus as well as the truck were driving rashly and negligently as a result of which the accident took place and he breathed his last. It is apposite to note that both the Insurance Companies, namely, the Oriental Insurance Company as well as the New India Insurance Company were arrayed as 3 respondents in the appeal. 3. The owners of the vehicles filed their objections contending, inter alia, that the collision was due to rash and negligent driving of the other vehicle and further asserted that the vehicles had the insurance cover. 4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed its written statement initially on 03.08.1996 and again an additional written statement on 20.02.1999 stating, inter alia, that there was no authenticated paper as regards the age of the deceased and he was not a bonafide passenger of the vehicle. The blame was also put forth on the other vehicle which was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited. 5. The New India Insurance Company Limited filed its written statement contending, inter alia, that the claim put forth was exorbitant and neither the bus owner nor the bus driver of the bus had been made parties in the case and the claimants had not disclosed the name of the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the tribunal framed as many as 9 issues and came to hold that 4 the deceased died in a motor accident on 16.07.1994; that the accident occurred due to the negligence and rash driving of the drivers of both the vehicles in question; that the truck in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the insurance was valid on the date of accident; that both the drivers of the bus as well as the truck had negligently contributed for causation of the accident and, hence, it is a case of contributory negligence; that though the bus owner had entered appearance but could not contest and the insurance of the bus with the Insurance Company had not been proved and, therefore, the bus owner was liable to pay the compensation for the accident; and that regard being had to the salary certificate, the basic salary of the deceased was Rs. 1880/- and, hence, his annual income would come to Rs. 1880 x 12 = Rs. 22,560/-, to which the multiplier of 16 would be applied and the amount would come to Rs. 22,560/- x 16 = Rs. 3,60,960/-, to which an amount of Rs. 9,500/- would be added towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate and, thus, the tribunal awarded in total the amount of Rs. 3,60,960/- + Rs. 9,500/- 5 = Rs. 3,70,460/-. 7. I have heard Mrs. Anjana Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the Insurance Companies. 8. The only question that arises in this appeal whether the amount of compensation that has been determined and granted is just and proper. It is submitted by Mrs. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants that the tribunal has erroneously computed the aforesaid amount on the basis of the basic salary and not the whole salary, which the deceased was drawing at the time of accident. It is also urged by her that the tribunal has not taken into consideration the future service prospects as the deceased was only 38 years of age. Regard being had to the salary certificate (Exhibit 2), which has been proved, and taking into consideration the future service prospects, I am inclined to hold that the monthly contribution of the deceased has to be determined at Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand). Thus, the yearly contribution would come to Rs. 3,000/- x 12 = Rs. 36,000/-. Regard being had to the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 16 would be applied. 6 Thus, the amount on this score would come to Rs. 36,000/- x 16 = Rs. 5,76,000/-, to which an amount of Rs. 9,500/- would be added towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate and, thus, the total amount would come to Rs. 5,76,000/- + Rs. 9,500/- = Rs. 5,85,500/- (Five lacs eighty five thousand five hundred). 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 said sum before the tribunal. The tribunal shall disburse the differential aount 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. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award granted by the tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. )