Oral ORDER Heard Sri Mukesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent no.2/ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “M.V. Act”) has been preferred against the Judgment dated 29.07.2008 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge-cum-5th Addl. Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Claim Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.267 of 2005, whereby the learned Claim Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants/ Appellants. 3. Short fact of the case is that on 24.08.2005, while the husband of appellant no.1 was moving on bicycle, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a bus in the name and style of “Priya Ratnesh” bearing Registration No.BR-06P/0568, the bus dashed the deceased and turned turtle and he was smashed beneath the bus, as a result of which the husband of appellant no.1 died at the place of occurrence itself. Thereafter, a F.I.R. vide Pear (Muzaffarpur) P.S. Case No.75 of 2005 was registered on 24.08.2005 for the offence under Sections 279 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending bus. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 14.09.2005 against the driver, namely, Jai Prakash Choudhary. The offending vehicle at the time of accident was under the insurance cover of Respondent no.2/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.4, 68, 000/- before the Claim Tribunal. In support of claim case, number of documents were brought on record and also six persons were examined as witnesses. The Respondent no.2/the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., though appeared, did not produce any witness to dispute the case of the claimants. However, the learned Claims Tribunal on examination of materials on record was of the opinion that the accident had occurred due to fault of the deceased himself and only on this very ground, the learned Claim Tribunal has rejected the claim petition, which has been assailed in the present appeal. 4. Sri Mukesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the husband of the deceased died in the vehicular accident leaving behind appellant no.1 (widow) and six minor children. 4. Sri Mukesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the husband of the deceased died in the vehicular accident leaving behind appellant no.1 (widow) and six minor children. He submits that it was a clear-cut case of the claimants that in the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent. This fact has been corroborated during investigation by the police and, as such, the police had submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The charge-sheet dated 14.09.2005 has been got exhibited as Ext.2. He submits that once during investigation, it was established that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and he was charge-sheeted, the learned Claim Tribunal was not required to dismiss the claim petition on minor contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses, whereas the witnesses in clear term had stated that in the said accident, the husband of appellant no.1 had died. It was admitted that the offending vehicle at the time of accident was under insurance cover of Respondent no.2. 5. Keeping in view the fact that evidences were already on record to suggest that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and due to his fault, accident had occurred and the husband of appellant no.1 died, there was no reason for the learned Claim Tribunal to come to a conclusion that it was fault on the part of the deceased himself. The fact of negligent driving is corroborated from Ext.2 i.e. charge-sheet submitted by the police besides other evidences, which have been brought on record by the claimants. 6. Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.2/ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants. However, he does not dispute the fact that in the police investigation, the driver of the offending vehicle was found rash and negligent and was charge-sheeted. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the deceased was a vegetable vendor and he was earning Rs.4500/- per month and, as such, compensation was required to be calculated on the basis of income of the deceased i.e. Rs.4500/- per month. Sri Priyadarshi, learned counsel for Respondent no.2 submits that before the Claim Tribunal except vague and oral submission, no documentary evidence was brought on record to show the income of the deceased. Sri Priyadarshi, learned counsel for Respondent no.2 submits that before the Claim Tribunal except vague and oral submission, no documentary evidence was brought on record to show the income of the deceased. He submits that in such situation, notional income, as prescribed in Schedule-II of the M.V. Act was required to be taken into account. He submits that Rs.15, 000/- per annum as notional income would be the income of the deceased and 1/3rd as personal expenses of the deceased is required to be deducted from Rs.15, 000/-. 8. It was submitted by Sri Mukesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that Rs.15, 000/- per annum as notional income was incorporated in Schedule-II of the M.V. Act long back in the year 1994. He submits that in view of recent pronouncement of the Apex Court as well as this Court, at least Rs.36, 000/- per annum is to be treated as notional income. In support of his argument, he has heavily relied on a Judgment of the Apex Court, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 165 ; Laxmi Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Tabbar and Anr. 9. Sri Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.2/ Oriental Insurance Company does not dispute the proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court and in that view of the matter, notional income of the deceased can be treated as Rs.36, 000/- per annum. Since the deceased has left behind him seven dependants, from Rs.36, 000/- , 1/5th (i.e. Rs.36, 000 x 1/5) = Rs.7, 200/- is required to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 46 years and, as such, loss comes to Rs.28, 880/-. As per Schedule-II of the M.V Act, the multiplier would be 13 and, accordingly, the compensation amount comes to Rs. 3, 74, 400/- (28, 880 x 13=3, 74, 400). The claimants are entitled to get Rs.2000/- as funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- as consortium and loss of estate as Rs.2500/- and, as such, total compensation amount thereafter comes to Rs. 3, 83, 900/-. The compensation amount is required to be paid to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The claimants are entitled to get Rs.2000/- as funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- as consortium and loss of estate as Rs.2500/- and, as such, total compensation amount thereafter comes to Rs. 3, 83, 900/-. The compensation amount is required to be paid to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The claimants/ appellants are also entitled to get simple interest @ 6% per annum on compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. 10. With above observation, the appeal stands allowed.