- (1.) We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The facts of this case, briefly, are as follows: The claimants-appellants filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby the widow of the deceased (Ranjit Bagdi) along with her three minor children and the mother of the deceased prayed for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of a road traffic accident which resulted in the death of the said Ranjit Bagdi on 4.5.2010. The learned Court below by judgement and/or award dated 10.1.2012 allowed the said application under section 166 of the said Act of 1988 by directing inter alia that the respondent No. 1 (Insurance Company concerned) shall pay the compensation amount of Rs. 2,70,000/-, after making adjustments of any amount which might have already been paid, to the five claimants in equal shares. The learned Advocate for the claimants-appellants has submitted that the said compensation amount has already been received by the claimants-appellants but the claimants-appellants have not received any amount on account of interest since the learned Tribunal below granted interest only on the condition that the Insurance Company concerned fails to pay the compensation amount within the stipulated period of time. There is no dispute that the deceased Ranjit Bagdi, at the time of accident, was a man 30 years of age. The dispute, however, is with regard to the income which the said Ranjit Bagdi had been earning just before his death. The said claimants stated that the deceased had monthly income of Rs. 3,500/- as a labourer. It appears that the claimants could not prove the said monthly income of the deceased by producing any document as such but the learned Tribunal below proceeded on the basis of notional income and came to the conclusion that the notional annual income of the deceased should be considered as Rs. 24,000/-. The learned Tribunal below deducted 1/3rd of such amount toward personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier 16.
(2.) The appeal was argued at length by the learned Advocate for the appellants and also the learned Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company but at the time of giving reply to the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company, the learned Advocate for the claimants-appellants submitted that since the accident took place sometime in the year 2010 it would not be at all unreasonable if the monthly income of the deceased before his death is taken at Rs. 3,300/- per month. In this regard he submitted that even in cases where accident took place in the year 2003 or 2004, notional income has been considered by various Courts to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. The said learned Advocate for the claimants-appellants further submitted that he has no objection if deduction of 1/3rd of the monthly income is made towards personal expenses of the deceased but the multiplier to be adopted in the present case should be 17 as it appears from the 2nd Schedule of the said Act of 1988 that the multiplier of 17 may be applied in cases where the deceased is above 30 years but not exceeding 35 years.
(3.) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company submitted to such submissions of the claimants' learned Advocate that since the present case arises out of an application under section 166 of the said Act of 1988, the 2nd Schedule is not strictly applicable but since the income would stand to remain less than Rs. 40,000/- per annum even if it is assumed that the deceased had an income of Rs. 3,300/- per month, the 2nd Schedule may be resorted to only as a guide. The learned Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company, having said that, left the matter to the discretion of the Court.;