SUNDARWA DEVI Vs. KRISHNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rabi Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent no.2/ National Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. insurer of the offending vehicle.

(2.) The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as "the M.V.Act") has been preferred by the claimants/appellants against the Judgment dated 30.06.2011 and Award dated 13.07.2011 passed by Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.lV-cum-M.A.C. Tribunal, Nalanda at Biharsharif (hereinafter referred to as "the Claim Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 32 of 2007. By the said Judgment and Award, the learned Claim Tribunal has directed the Respondent no.2 to pay total compensation amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. Since no appeal has been preferred by the Respondent no.2, who has been directed to pay the compensation against the Judgment and Award, the Court is of the opinion that there is no need to hear the Respondent no.1/owner of the offending vehicle and, as such, the matter was heard in absence of owner and is being disposed of by this order.

(3.) The appellant has primarily prayed for enhancement of compensation amount. Firstly, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased at the time of accident was earning about Rs.3,500/- per month and, as such, keeping in view the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- compensation should have been calculated, but the learned Claim Tribunal has treated income of the deceased as Rs.80/- per day in view of the circular of the State Government. It has further been argued that during the trial before the learned Claim Tribunal though on behalf of the claimants, Matriculation Certificate of the deceased was got exhibited showing date of birth of the deceased as 22.05.1995 on the date of death of the deceased was aged about 44 years and as such, multiplier in this case was required to be adopted as 15, but the learned Claim Tribunal has treated the age of the deceased on the basis of post-mortem examination report as 50 and multiplier of 13 has been adopted. Learned counsel for the appellants has further prayed for adding 30% on the income of the deceased as future prospect. Since the appeal has been preferred only for enhancement of the compensation amount and no cross appeal has been filed by the insurer of the vehicle, who has been directed to pay compensation amount, there is no need to go into detail of the case.