Hon’ble Ashok Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 8.5.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, District Bareilly in M.A.C.P. No. 511 of 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment is not acceptable as the Tribunal has not considered the plea of the insurance company with regard to the delay in lodging the First Information Report which was lodged after 55 days from the date of incidence.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has pointed out that after the accident, which took place on 24.10.2014, the victim-deceased was hospitalised in District Hospital, Uddham Singh Nagar, thereafter he was shifted at Kailash Hospital, Rudrapur and then Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, where he was treated till 13.12.2014 and since the doctors noticed that there was no recovery then a discharge slip was issued and it was advised to the claimants to take the victim-deceased at home and provide the nursing which is required. After discharge from the hospital of New Delhi on 13.12.2014 the victim-deceased died at his home on 18.12.2014 i.e. after a gap of about 55 days and immediately after last funeral rites the First Information Report was lodged by the Son of the deceased, in pursuance of the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the competent Magistrate of Baheri, District Bareilly.

5. The facts of the case, as indicated and mentioned by the Tribunal and in the claim petition, reveals that due to accident the victim-deceased sustained serious injuries and his one leg was completely became dis-order and several other body parts are also became in dis-order conditions. The complainant, son of the deceased namely Gufran Ahmad has reached at the hospital immediately when he received the information of the said accident.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has pointed out that admittedly the victim deceased died on 18.12.2014 but no post-mortem was done.

7. The counsel for the claimant contended that there was no need to conduct the post-mortem as admittedly the family members of the deceased were not interested for post-mortem as the body of the deceased was became in bad shape and condition.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that an accident took place and the victim deceased sustained serious injuries and was hospitalised for about 50 days and thereafter was discharged from the Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi and the discharge slip has been issued. After release from the hospital the victim-deceased was cared by the family members at home, where he died.

9. In my opinion in such peculiar facts, if the post-mortem is not done, there is no wrong either on the part of the family members of the deceased or the police.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter has pointed out that while fixing the notional income @ Rs. 9,000/- per month the Tribunal has neither considered the various decision of this Court as well as of the Hon’ble Apex Court, where in the case of a skilled labour or a person claims to earn a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, the notional income normally is fixed in between Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 6,000/-.

11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard appears to be reasonable.

12. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding whatsoever while arriving at figure of Rs. 9,000/- per month being the notional income of victim-deceased where in the instant case it is claimed that the deceased was a Munshi and in support of his income a simple certificate is obtained and filed showing the same as Rs. 5,000/- per month.

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and another v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 201