The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 4 PLJR 261 to determine the compensation, future prospect, personal expense deduction, and multiplier for calculating the amount of compensation in a motor accident claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL, J.

Re.: I.A. No. 248 of 2015

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent no.7 on this interlocutory application.

Aforesaid interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of seven days in preferring this appeal with the case that the appeal was to be filed on 24.02.2012, but as the appellant no.1 happens to be helpless widow and was busy in catering the need of her family after untimely demise of her husband, she fell ill due to exertion and after recovery from the ailment, she has filed the aforesaid appeal on 30.03.2012. There is no deliberate and intentional latches on the part of the appellant in the aforesaid delay in filing this appeal.

Respondent no.7 did not file any rejoinder against the said petition.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, aforesaid delay made in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned and aforesaid interlocutory applications is accordingly allowed.

Re.: M.A. No. 159 of 2012

On the consensus of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent no.7 and on their submission, heard both the parties on this miscellaneous appeal.

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment dated 27.08.2011 and award dated 25.11.2011 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Sitamarhi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 01 of 2004 whereby the learned Tribunal allowing the claim petition directed the opposite party no.2-National Insurance Company Limited to pay the final amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,85,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing claim case till 2008 to the claimants.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that claimants filed Motor Accident Claim Case No. 01 of 2004 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 32,00,866/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of death of the deceased Nitishwar Shahi in the Motor Vehicle Accident with the case in succinct that the deceased Nitishwar Shahi was working as Gram Prasar Karta in Runni Saidpur Block and he was also in-charge of the Panchayat Secretary, Thumma. On 28.02.2003 after completing his office work at Runni Saidpur Block, he arrived at State Road Transport Bus Stand in the evening to take bus to regress to his house where he met Mukesh Kumar and both were standing at the Muzaffarpur-Sitamarhi main road in front of Morsand High School located towards the north of Runni Saidpur Lakhandei bridge in the wait of bus. In the meantime at around 07:15 PM, a State Road Transport bus proceeding towards Sitamarhi arrived there. They halted the said bus to board on it, but in the course of boarding the said bus by Nitishwar Shahi, driver of the said bus drove it rashly and negligently resultantly said Nitishwar Shahi fell under the bus and sustained grievous injury. He was rushed to Runni Saidpur Hospital by the locals on jeep to accord him medical aid, but he was declared brought dead by the doctor. The driver of the bus managed to escape along with the bus. Aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver at the relevant time of accident. Regarding the aforesaid incident, Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2003 was instituted under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Deceased used to get Rs. 7266/- as salary and he was 35 years old at the time of his death.

4. Both the opposite parties i.e. State Road Transport Corporation and the National Insurance Company Limited put their appearance in the case and filed separate written statements. Claimants also adduced ocular as well as documentary evidence in buttress of their case.

5. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid judgment and award as detailed in the earlier paragr