IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 358 of 2006 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Smt. Beena & others … Respondents Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate, for appellant Sri Lalit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 to 6 Dated: May 2, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.04.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/A.D.J./1st F.T.C. Haldwani, District Nainital, in M.A.C.P. No. 233 of 2005, Smt. Beena & others vs. Rajendra Singh Bisht & another. The claimants Smt. Beena and others filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against opposite parties, for grant of compensation in lieu of death of deceased-Ramesh Chandra in a motor accident. According to the claimants, deceased-Ramesh Chandra was doing business of confectionary on contract and on 6.5.2005 deceased-Ramesh Chandra along with his employees had gone for catering at Bhimtal on the occasion of marriage of daughter of one Govind Singh. On 7.5.2005 deceased Ramesh Chandra was coming back Haldwani from Bhimtal along with his employees due to some work and as soon as he stepped in Bus No. U.P.02C/2464, the driver of bus 2 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, due to which deceased-Ramesh Chandra fell down from the bus and came under the bus and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was taken in Soban Singh Jeena Base Hospital, Haldwani, where he died during treatment. The claimants suffered economic loss as well as mental agony due to death of deceased-Ramesh Chandra. The claimants also pleaded that they expended Rs.50,000/- towards cremation of deceased. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation, against opposite parties. The opposite party no. 1-Rajendra Singh Bisht filed written statement and admitted the factum of accident. He has pleaded that said accident did not take place due to rash and negligence of his driver. At the time of accident his vehicle was being plied according to rules of Motor Vehicles Act. He has also pleaded that accident occurred due to own fault of deceased as he was standing at Gate of bus and fell down from the bus when someone gave him a push. He has further pleaded that at the time of accident driver of bus was having valid driving licence and vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited. The opposite party no. 2-insurance company filed written statement and alleged that it was not given any information with regard to said accident. There was breach of conditions of insurance policy by owner of offending vehicle. It has also pleaded that insurance company can be held liable to pay the compensation only when the owner of vehicle establishes that at the time of accident vehicle was 3 having all valid papers and driver was having valid driving licence. It has further pleaded that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and therefore, the claim petition filed against insurance company is liable to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the material available before it and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition, against the opposite party no. 2-The New India Assurance Company Limited, for a sum of Rs.7,39,600/-, as compensation, in favour of claimants. The Tribunal also directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid by opposite party no. 2-insurance company within a period of one month, failing which, the claimants shall be entitled to get an interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/insurance company has preferred the appeal before this Court. Heard Sri M. K. Goyal, learned counsel for appellant/insurance company, Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 6 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal without 4 considering the evidence on record and without considering the legal aspect awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.7,39,000/- besides interest at the rate of 9% per annum. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award thoroughly. The multiplier of ‘11’ as has been adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited in the cases of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Versus S. Rajpriya & others, reported in 2005 (4) SC 87 and The Managing Director, TNSTC versus Sripriya & others, reported in 2007(5) Supreme 301. The multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased cannot be more than ‘8’. As per the statement of claimant-Smt. Beena, age of deceased at the time of his death was 51 years, while the post-mortem report reveals that age of deceased was 55 years. Therefore, I consider the age of deceased between the age group of 50-55 years and in view of this age group of deceased the multiplier cannot go beyond ‘8’ in any case. As far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased keeping in view the relevant material available on record as well as income-tax return submitted by the deceased on 11th April, 2005 i.e. about two months before his death. The finding of the Tribunal for assessing the income of the deceased is not liable to be disturbed. After adopting the multiplier of ‘8’ the total financial dependency of claimants comes to Rs.66,600 x 8=Rs.5,32,800/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of funeral 5 expenses as Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/-towards loss of consortium, shall remain intact. The Tribunal in awarding the amount of compensation has pointed out that the conditional interest shall be payable to the claimants, which does not appear to be justified. I am, therefore, of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by this Court shall be payable to the claimants along with an interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment ‘instead of 9% per annum conditional interest as has been imposed by the Tribunal’. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that claimants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.5,39,800/- (Rupees Five Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred), instead of Rs.7,39,600/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with an interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment ‘instead of 9% per annum conditional interest as has been imposed by the Tribunal’. The amount deposited by the appellant- insurance company before this Court including the statutory amount shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned and in case, if any excess amount has been deposited by the appellant-insurance company, then the excess amount shall be released in favour of appellant-insurance company. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 6