IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 6 of 2007 National Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Versus Smt. Darshani Devi & others … Respondents Mr. T.C. Pandey, holding brief of Sri V.K. Kohli, senior Advocate, Advocate for appellant Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 Dated: August 7, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.10.2006 passed by MACT, Uttarkashi, in MACT Case No. 10 of 2005, whereby claim of claimants was allowed to the tune of Rs.1,97,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition and opposite party no. 2/National Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to pay the same. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in claim petition are that on 1.3.2005 at about 7.00 p.m. when deceased-Ram Lal (owner of vehicle) was going to his home village Manpur from Chaurangikhal, by Vehicle No. U.P.09-219, at Uttarkashi-Lambgaon Road near village Dhanpur, the said vehicle being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, met with an accident and fell into a Khad, due to which Ram Lal sustained injuries and died at the spot itself. The deceased at the time of accident was 31 years of age and was registered owner of offending vehicle. The deceased-Ram Lal 2 was earning Rs.7000/- per month from agriculture and animal husbandry at the time of his death. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.11,91,064/- as compensation, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition, against the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1-Jitendra Lal (driver of vehicle in question) filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been pleaded that on the date of accident vehicle in question was being plied by opposite party no. 1 carefully and slowly, suddenly due to sudden brake failure in the vehicle it fell into Khad and accident had occurred. It has also been pleaded that on the date of accident driver of vehicle was holding valid driving licence. It has further been pleaded that opposite party no. 1 is not at all liable to pay compensation and opposite party no. 2-insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. Opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition. It has been pleaded that deceased was not traveling as passenger at the time of alleged accident; rather he was travelling as owner of vehicle. The deceased himself was the owner of vehicle and this statement is baseless that income of deceased was Rs.7000/- per month and in this regard claimants have produced no certificate and therefore claimants are not entitled to get any compensation from answering opposite party. In the additional pleas, it has been pleaded that on the date of accident driver of offending 3 vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and vehicle in question was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. It has also been pleaded that vehicle of deceased-Ram Lal (owner of vehicle) met with an accident due to fault of his driver and therefore answering opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as it was not a third party accident. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed following issues in the claim petition: 1. Whether on 1.3.2005 at 7.00 p.m. when Ram Lal was returning to his home from Chaurangikhal by Vehicle No. U.P.09-219, at Uttarkashi- Lambgaon Road near village Dhanpur, the said vehicle being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, met with an accident, due to which Ram Lal died at the spot itself? 2. Whether at the time of said accident vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 2 and owner of vehicle was having valid and effective papers relating to vehicle and driver of vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation on account of death of Ram Lal in the accident? If yes, what amount of compensation and from whom? 4 Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal after having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- in favour of claimants, against opposite party no. 2, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 16.10.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant/insurance company has filed this appeal before this Court. Heard Sri T.C. Pandey, holding brief of Sri V.K. Kohli, senior Advocate, learned counsel for appellant, Sri N.S. Negi, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and perused the record. While deciding issue no. 1 regarding factum of accident, the Claims Tribunal has discussed all the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has recorded a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Vehicle No. UP-09-219, on account of which Ram Lal sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries at the spot. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by Tribunal in this regard and the same deserves to be confirmed. As far as issue no. 2 with regard to insurance of vehicle, possession of papers relating to vehicle and driving licence of driver on the date of accident is concerned, the record reveals that opposite party no. 2-insurance company stated in its written 5 statement that on the date of accident driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence and owner of vehicle in question was not having registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate relating to vehicle in question and vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. Opposite party no. 1-Jitendra Lal (driver of vehicle) stated in his written statement that on the date of accident he was holding valid driving licence and filed copy of driving licence (paper no.33C/1) which shows that on the date of accident driver of vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence. The record further reveals that registration certificate of Vehicle No. UP-09-219 has also been filed as paper no. 27C/1 to 27C/2, which clearly shows that at the time of accident vehicle in question was registered in accordance with law. The copies of fitness certificate, pollution control certificate, insurance cover note have also been filed on record which clearly indicates that all the papers relating to vehicle in question were valid on the date of accident. The opposite party no. 2-insurance company did not adduce any evidence in support of his contention which may discredit the authenticity of said documents. The Tribunal after having considered the evidence adduced before it recorded a finding that on the date of accident driver of vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence and owner of vehicle was having valid and effective registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate relating to vehicle. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the same deserves to be confirmed. 6 As far as issue no. 3 regarding entitlement of compensation to claimants on account of death of deceased-Ram Lal in the accident, is concerned, the claimants stated in the claim petition that age of deceased-Ram Lal was 31 years and his monthly income was Rs.7,000/- at the time of accident. PW- 1, Smt. Darshani Devi wife of deceased-Ram Lal, also stated that at the time of accident age of her husband was 30-31 years and her husband was doing the business of vehicle and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month, out of which he used to give a sum of Rs.5000/- to the claimants. But the claimants did not adduce any evidence to show the monthly income of deceased as Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the notional income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd out it the annual income of deceased has been worked out to Rs.10,000/-. The age of deceased in the claim petition has been mentioned as 31 years at the time of accident, whereas PW-1 Smt. Darshani Devi stated in his deposition that at the time of accident her husband was 30-31 years of age. As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was 32 years, while as per Parivar Registrar date of birth of deceased was 12.11.1974, on the basis of which at the time of accident deceased was 31 years of age. The Tribunal keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case has taken into consideration the age of deceased as 31 years and selected the multiplier of ‘17’ on the said age. After multiplying annual income of deceased with multiplier of ‘17’ the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants comes to Rs.10,000 x 17=Rs.1,70,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a 7 sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of mental pain and agony. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,97,000/- as compensation, which appears to be justified and needs no interference. The interest @ 6% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal also appears to be justified and is not to be disturbed. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is hereby confirmed. However, the claimants shall not be entitled to claim any money as compensation under the personal accident policy. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP