Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1515 (PAT)

United India Insurance Company v. Raj Ballabh Rai

2008-09-30

SUBASH CHANDRA JHA

body2008
Judgment Subash Chandra Jha, J. 1. The order under challenge is dated 21.7.2005 and award signed on 4.8.2005 passed in Claim Case No. 125/2001 by 6th Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patna, whereby and whereunder the claim petition filed by the parents of the deceased Dhaneshwar Rai, who was a boy of 22 years of age, have been allowed and the appellant Insurance Company has been directed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- (One lac twenty-five thousand) to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order alongwith an interest of 6% per annum. 2. Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) which has already been paid earlier was to be excluded from the total amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- (One lac Seventy five thousand). 3. So far notional income of the deceased is concerned, it was considered to be Rs. 15,000/-(Fifteen thousand) per annum out of which 1/3rd has been deducted and calculation has been made at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) per annum with multiplier of 17 i.e. Rs. 1,70,000/- (One lac seventy thousand) plus Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses, which comes to Rs. 1,75,000/- (One lac seventy-five thousand), out of which Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) has already been paid to the claimants and, therefore, a direction for payment of Rs. 1,25,000/- (One lac twenty-five thousand) has been given to the Insurance Company. 4. Deceased Dhaneshwar Rai was sleeping in Yatri Niwas by the side of N.H.30 and at about 1.30 AM in between the night of 13/14.7.2001, a Truck bearing Registration No. PB-12D-9941 dashed the Yatri Niwas due to which the building collapsed and as a result, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to his injuries. The vehicle concerned was under proper insurance bearing Policy No. 04338, Certificate No. 4330 which was valid from 28.11.2000 to 9.12.2001 i.e. within the period of accident. 5. The income of the deceased was claimed at Rs. 6,000/- per month who was employed in a Plywood Factory. But only the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum was considered by the learned Tribunal. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. No body appears for the respondents-claimants. 6. 5. The income of the deceased was claimed at Rs. 6,000/- per month who was employed in a Plywood Factory. But only the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum was considered by the learned Tribunal. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. No body appears for the respondents-claimants. 6. The only point raised here on behalf of the Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal considered the multiplier of 17 in respect of the age of the deceased, which ought to have been for consideration of the age of father of the deceased Raj Ballav Rai, who was 63 years of age, at the time of such accident. This fact after submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant could be ascertained from the deposition of the claimant Raj Ballav Rai CW 1 which was recorded on 23.8.2003 wherein he had stated his age as 65 years and the same has also been estimated by the learned Tribunal. 7. In that situation of the matter, it is held on the date of the accident, the age of the father of the deceased could be said to be 63 years. So, in that context of the matter, proper multiplier should have been, as per second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, of five applicable in respect of the age in between 60-65 years. 8. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision reported in, wherein it has been held that multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased or the claimant whichever is higher. 9. No body appears on behalf of the respondents to resist such argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. Moreover, this law has been settled by the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants. In view of taking multiplier of five, notional income of the deceased comes to Rs. 10,000/- X5=Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) which has already been paid by the appellant. The appellant in such situation is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- more with interest thereon as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 10. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this appeal is allowed.