IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 300/2008 Mohd. Haneef ….. Appellant. Versus Rajasthan Transport Corporation and another … Respondents. Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Sri Tanuj Semwal, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Dated: 4-3-2009 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, ACJ: This appeal U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, arise out against the judgment and award dated 25-4- 2008, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar, in MACT Case No. 48/2006, Mohd. Haneef Vs. Rajasthan Transport Corporation and another. 2- The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 13-1-2005 at about 4.45 P.M. Nazim son of claimant Mohd. Haneef along with his friends was travelling in Motorcycle No. U.A. 08-C-5267. When they reached at Manglore bend Bus No. R.J. 02-P- 1902 dashed the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the motorcyclists sustained grievous injuries. Soyab died at the spot whereas Nazim succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. The father of the deceased Nazim preferred claim petition for the compensation. 3- The opposite party no.1 filed written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition. It has alleged that the Bus was in a standing position and the offending motorcycle was trying to overtake a Tata- 2 407 and dashed with the standing Bus. It has also been alleged that there was no fault on the part of Bus driver. The deceased was unmarried person and huge amount of compensation has been demanded by the claimant. 4- The opposite party No.2, driver of the offending Bus also contested the claim petition and denied the accident by his Bus. He alleged that claim petition has been filed on wrong facts in order to get compensation. 5- The learned tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the petition. Thereafter parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire material available on record, decreed the claim petition against the opposite party No.1, Rajasthan Transport Corporation for a sum of Rs. 55,000/- as compensation, along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 6- Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 7- I have heard learned counsel for the claimant/appellant as well as the counsel for the opposite party/ respondent No.1 and perused the record. 8- So far as the rash and negligence on the part of Bus driver is concerned, the case of the claimant is that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of Bus No. R.J. 02-P- 1902. The driver of the Bus who has been produced as D.W.1, has also admitted 3 the accident, but alleged that the accident has occurred due to own fault of the motorcyclist. The Bus was standing there and the motorcyclist collided with it when he was trying to overtake a Tata-407. In this case the driver of the Bus did not lodge any report of the accident. The F.I.R. of the accident has been lodged by one Mohd. Sahid. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that the Bus driver dashed the motorcycle from the front side. If the Bus was standing on the road and the motorcyclist collided with it and there was no fault on the part of Bus driver, and two persons had died in the accident, then it was quite natural for the Bus driver to lodge the F.I.R. at the nearby police station, mentioning the true facts in it. But the Bus driver has not done so. The interested statement of the driver cannot be taken to be true in above background of the case. In the above facts of the case the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligence on the part of Bus driver. 9- As far as the compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, the approach adopted by the tribunal appears to be wrong. The tribunal has taken the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum, which is wrong in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Sobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company and another ( decided on 1.11.2006) . The accident in the instant case has taken place on 13-1- 2005, therefore, in view of the price hike, the notional income is to be taken as Rs. 36,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3Prd P towards personal expenses the financial dependency of the claimant comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. As the deceased was unmarried, the age of the father of the deceased would be taken for 4 purpose of calculating the compensation. The age of the father of the deceased was 63 years, therefore, a multiplier of ‘5’ would be just and proper and after adopting the multiplier of ‘5’ the amount of compensation to be awarded comes to Rs. 24,000/- x 5= Rs. 1,20,000/-. The sum of Rs. 5,000/-, awarded by the tribunal, under different heads, shall remain intact. 10- The rate of interest awarded by the tribunal shall also remain intact. 11- For the reasons stated above, the claimant/appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-= Rs. 1,25,000/- along with interest indicated in the impugned award. 12- The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified up-to the extent that the claimant/appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation from respondent/opposite party Rajasthan Transport Corporation along with the interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award, instead of Rs. 55,000/- as has been awarded by the tribunal. (B.C. Kandpal, ACJ.) ISB