IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 48 of 2007 Moharram Ali & others … Appellants Vs Narendra Singh & another … Respondents Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 07.12.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 97 of 2006, Moharram Ali & others Vs Narendra Singh & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2006, the deceased (Sakir) was traveling in Tempo No. UA06E/7312 from Rudrapur to Sidkul, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner. When the said tempo reached near Bharat Petrol Pump, suddenly, the driver of the tempo lost control over the same and it met with an accident. Sakir Ali sustained serious injuries and he was admitted in the Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani, where doctor referred him to Delhi. On the way to Delhi, he had died. At the time of the death he was doing the business of tiles at Escort factory and was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement before the Tribunal denying most of the allegations made in the claim petition. On 2 the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal has decreed a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- in favour of the claimants vide judgment and award dated 07.12.2006. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants/appellants has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancing the amount of compensation. Respondent/Iffco Tokio No. 2 also preferred a cross appeal against the impugned judgment and award. 5. Heard Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued only on the point of quantum and has submitted that the Tribunal has committed mistake while deciding the petition. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the claim petition, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 4,500/- but the Tribunal considered notional income of Rs. 2,500/- per month. He has further submitted that in order to prove his income, the claimants have produced paper No. 24C/2 but the Tribunal did not consider the same in evidence properly in order to asses the monthly income of the deceased. 7. Perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that the Tribunal found that the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased was not consistent. Therefore, the Tribunal in order to calculate the income of the 3 deceased considered notional income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 20,000/-. The view adopted by the Tribunal appears to be quite unjustified. The Division Bench of this Court on 01.11.2006 in Appeal No. 02 of 2005, Shobhan Singh & another Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd. & another has considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- due to price hike. Hence, in this case the suitable amount of notional income shall be taken as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 8. As far as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘10’ in order to calculate the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has conceded to this aspect that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal appears to be absolutely justified. 9. Under these circumstances, I don’t have any other option to take other view except that the multiplier of ‘10’ adopted by the Tribunal is justified. As notice earlier in the absence of any evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased as well as in view of the judgment given by this Court, the notional income, keeping in view the price hike should be considered to be Rs. 36,000/- per annum where the cogent and reliable evidence establishing the income of the deceased has not been adduced. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ‘10’ which appears to be quite reasonable. 4 10. On the basis of the aforesaid calculation, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- (24000 X 10). The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is not to be disturbed. Thus, in view of the aforesaid calculation, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,55,000/-. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 2,55,000/- instead of Rs. 2,15,000/- along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Consequently, the cross appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 01.10.2008 ASWAL