IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MA No.309 of 2010
1. Mostt. Sona Devi, widow of late Mahesh Chaudhary.
2. Ranju Kumari, minor daughter of late Mahesh Chaudhary.
3. Babli Kumar, minor son of late Mahesh Chaudhary.
Appellant nos. 2 and 3 are minor daughter and son of Late Mahesh
Chaudhary under the guardianship of their mother and natural
guardian and well wisher of their mother Mostt. Sona Devi, all
resident of village Murkatta Manjhaul, Police Station Baragandhar,
Police Station Moffasil, District Gaya.
....................... Appellants/ applicants.
Versus
1. Smt. Mano Devi, Wife of Late Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of
Mohalla Murli Hill Bairagi Opposite Chapra Kothi, Police Station Delha,
District Gaya, owner of the 407 Maxi bearing No. BR-2 /7697.
2. Bindeshwari Prasad, Son of Late Ram Kishun Prasad, Resident of
village - Gango Bigha, Post Office Rampur, Police Station Rampur, District
Gaya.
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional
Manager, A. N. Road Murarpur, Police Station Kotwali, District Gaya at
present Asha Singh More, A.P. Colony, Police Station Rampur, District -
Gaya . .................... Respondents - Opposite Parties.
-----------
03/ 27.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the
order dated 8th January, 2010 passed by the Ist Additional
District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim
Tribunal, Gaya whereby the claim of the appellants
regarding the death of Mahesh Choudhary has been allowed
to the tune of Rs.4,08,000/-.
The grievance of the appellants is for enhancement
of the compensation. However, it has come in evidence that
Mahesh Choudhary was earning Rs.150-200 per day by
-2-
selling toddy.
Learned lower court, however, considered that the
toddy selling is a seasonal business and assessed his earning
Rs.100/- per day at a flat rate for the entire year and held
that deceased Mahesh Choudhary had annual income of
Rs.36,000/- per annum and thereafter considered to deduct
1/3rd amount as personal expenditure and calculated the
compensation amount on taking Rs.24,000/- as saving and
with a multiplier of 17 as he was 25 years old and hence has
well considered the every aspect for calculating the income
in fact and law. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in
calculating the compensation.
However, having regard to the fact that the
compensation was calculated after taking into consideration
entire materials on record both on fact and law. I do not find
that there is any illegality or irregularity in calculating the
amount of compensation at a lower rate and therefore, no
case for enhancement of compensation is made out.
The appeal has no merit and hence it is dismissed.
Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)