Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 327 (PAT)

Chulhan Prasad v. Amrendra Kumar Dwivedi

2012-02-24

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sanjay Singh, who has appeared on behalf of Opp.Party no.2/ Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on limitation petition i.e. on I.A. No. 6532 of 2010 as well as on Memo of Appeal. 2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred against the order/Judgment dated 12.03.2010 passed by the 9th Addl.District Judge-cum- Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Saran at Chapra( hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.45/2000 for enhancement of compensation amount. The appeal has been preferred after expiry of 153 days from the date of limitation. 3. On 12.08.1999 one Dudhnath Prasad, a minor boy died in a vehicular accident. In the accident, the offending vehicle was a bus bearing Registration No. BHD-1619. Thereafter, an F.I.R. vide Dighwara P.S. Case No.79 /99 was registered and after investigation chargesheet against driver of the offending bus for rash and negligent driving was submitted. The mother and father of the deceased initially filed a petition claiming compensation under the provision of M.V.Act. However, during the pendency of the claim case, both died and thereafter two younger brothers of the deceased, who are appellants before this Court, were substituted. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 16 years adopted multiplier of 16 as per Schedule-II of the M.V.Act and allowed the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- . Besides this Rs.2000/- was allowed as funeral expenses. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was a minor child of 16 years , notional income as prescribed in the M. V.Act i.e. Rs.15,000/- was taken into account and after deducting 1/3rd from the said amount , the compensation amount was calculated and directed to be paid. During the pendency of the claim case interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act was allowed to the claimants and Rs.50, 000/- was paid. The said amount was directed to be deducted from the compensation amount i.e. Rs.1, 62,000/- and thereafter total amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1, 12,000/- was directed to be paid to the claimants along with 6 % interest from the date of filing of the claim case. The claim case was filed in the year 2000 itself. The said amount was directed to be deducted from the compensation amount i.e. Rs.1, 62,000/- and thereafter total amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1, 12,000/- was directed to be paid to the claimants along with 6 % interest from the date of filing of the claim case. The claim case was filed in the year 2000 itself. During the course of argument, it was submitted by Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.2/ insurer that total compensation amount with interest in compliance with the Judgment of the Claims Tribunal had already been paid to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously rejected the claim of the appellants to the extent that the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- per month by doing business of sweets and tea. He submits that the calculation should have been done as per his monthly income i.e. Rs.6000/- , but without any reason the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claimed income of Rs.6000/- of the deceased and granted compensation as per the notional income of Rs.15,000/-. On this ground, it has been prayed to modify the Judgment and enhance the compensation amount. 4. Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2, while opposing the appeal, submits that accident had taken place in the year 1999 and at the time of accident, the deceased was a minor aged about 16 years and, as such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly adopted Rs.15,000/- as notional income as prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the Memo of Appeal. 5. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, the Court is not persuaded either to entertain the appeal on merit or on the ground of limitation. The Judgment in the case was passed on 12th March, 2010. The delay of 153 days has occurred in filing the appeal. The reasons, which have been assigned for condoning the delay, are not sufficient for entertaining the same. As submitted by learned counsel for the insurer, the entire compensation amount along with interest has already been paid to the claimants/appellants. It appears that delay in filing the appeal has purposely been done so that the entire compensation amount may be received and thereafter the appellants filed the appeal for its enhancement. As submitted by learned counsel for the insurer, the entire compensation amount along with interest has already been paid to the claimants/appellants. It appears that delay in filing the appeal has purposely been done so that the entire compensation amount may be received and thereafter the appellants filed the appeal for its enhancement. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was aged about 16 years, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly adopted the notional income for calculation of the compensation amount, which requires no interference since no cogent reason has been assigned in the petition for condoning the delay and in view of the fact that the compensation amount has already been paid as per the Judgment of the Claims Tribunal, there is no ground for proceeding with the present appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.