IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No.602 of 2006 Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. Through its Managing Director Mayapuri Depot New Delhi …………..Appellant Versus 1. Sri Manasvi Jain S/o Late Sri Suresh Chandra Jain R/o 100/1 G- Block Race Course, Dehradun 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. 29 Rajpur Road, Dehradun through its Manager 3. Sri Binej Driver S/o Sri Malkhan Singh Driver on D.T.C. Bus No. DL1PA/3111 R/o 15/16 D Babarpur Thana Welcome, Shahdra Delhi 4. Mansi D/o Late Sri Suresh Chandra Jain R/o 100/1 G Block Race Course, Dehradun ………….Respondents With Appeal From Order No.603 of 2006 Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. Through its Managing Director Mayapuri Depot New Delhi …………..Appellant Versus 1. Sri Manasvi Jain S/o Late Sri Suresh Chandra Jain R/o 100/1 G- Block Race Course, Dehradun 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. 29 Rajpur Road, Dehradun through its Manager 3. Sri Bimal Prasad Jain S/o Late Hosiyar Sigh Jain R/o A-9 Shambhu Nagar Baghpat Road, Meerut 4. Sri Binej Driver S/o Sri Malkhan Singh Driver on D.T.C. Bus No.DL1PA/3111 R/o 15/16 D Babarpur Thana Welcome, Shahdra Delhi 4. Mansi D/o Late Sri Suresh Chandra Jain R/o 100/1 G Block Race Course, Dehradun ………….Respondents With Appeal From Order No.484 of 2006 Sri Manasvi Jain S/o Late Sri Suresh Chandra Jain R/o 100/1 G-Block Race Course, Dehradun District Dehradun through his attorney Vijay Kumar Jain S/o Sri Keshav Das Jain R/o 137 Dhamawal, Dehradun District Dehradun …………..Appellant Versus 1. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. Through its Managing Director 2. Binej (Driver) S/o Sri Malkhan Singh Through Managing Director, Delhi Transport Corporation, Delhi 3. National Insurance Company Ltd. 29 Rajpur Road, Dehradun through its Divisional Manager 4. Km. Mansi D/o Late Sri Suresh Chandra Jain R/o 100/1 G Block Race Course, Dehradun District Dehradun 5. Vimal Prasad Jain S/o Late Hosiya Singh Jain R/o A-9 Shambhu Nagar Baghpat Road, Ghaziabad. District Ghaziabad. ………….Respondents Sri A.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant/D.T.C. Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant No.1 Sri Manish Dalakoti holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. All these appeal arise out of same accident, therefore, I am deciding all these appeals by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, I am describing the facts of appeal No.602 of 2006. 2. Appeal No.602 of 2006 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 07.07.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Claim Petition No.23 of 2005, Manasvi Jain Vs Delhi Transport Corporation & other whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,18,000/- as compensation along with compensation @ 5% per annum form the date of filing the claim petition till the payment against the appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation. 3. Appeal No.603 of 2006 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 07.07.2006 passed by the M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Claim petition No.24 of 2005, Manasvi Jain Vs Delhi Transport Corporation & others whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,25,176/- as compensation along with compensation @ 5% per annum form the date of filing the claim petition till the payment against the appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation. 4. Appeal No. 484 of 2006 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 07.07.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Claim Petition No.24 of 2005, Manasvi Jain Vs Delhi Transport Corporation & others whereby The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,25,176/-as compensation along with compensation @ 5% per annum form the date of filing the claim petition till the payment against the appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation. 5. Brief facts of the case of are that on 26.10.2004, Smt. Renu Jain along with her husband Sri Suresh Chandra Jain (deceased) were coming form Noida to Dehradun by her Maruti Zen Car bearing No.UP07F/4155. The said car was being driven by her husband Sri Suresh Chandr Jain. When they reached near M/s Uttam Sugar Mill situated at G.T. Road, Dehradun-Delhi Highway, 6km from Mangore, D.T.C. Bus bearing No. DL1PA/3111 which was being driven by its driver in very rash and negligent manner collided with the deceased’s car. The collision was so forceful that Smt. Renu Jain and her husband Sri Suresh Chandra Jain died at the spot. At the time of the accident Smt. Renu Jain was 53 years of age and used to darn Rs. 6,000/- per month by tuition and Sri Suresh Chandra Jain was 55 years of age and he was working Executive Engineer in P.W.D., Gopeshwar and used to earn Rs. 26,950/-per month as Salary. The claimants are the legal representation/children of the deceased and filed claim petition for Rs. 12,50,000/- for the loss of their mother and Rs. 36,000/- for the death of their father as compensation. 6. The Death Transport Corporation as well as driven of the bus contested the claim petition by filing their written statement. It has pleaded that the contents of the petition are wrong that Smt. Renu Jain was dong tuition work and used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month. It has further alleged that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It has further pleaded that the bus was insured with National Insurance Company, therefore, the liability of any compensation lies on the Insurance Company. 7. The National Insurance Company also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal. It has alleged that Smt. Renu Jain was the owner of the Maruti Zen car and she was not having separate insurance therefore, she is not entitled to get any compensation for the damages of her car. It has further pleaded that the accident took place due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the D.T.C. bus, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. 9. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition vide judgment and order dated 07.07.2006 for a sum of Rs. 6,18,000/- in Claim Petition No. 23 of 2005, Manasvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & others and Rs. 10,25,176/- Claim Petition No. 24 of 2005, Manasvi Jain Vs Delhi Transport Corporation & others, along with interest @ 5% per annum form the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment vide judgment and awarded dated 07.07.2006. 10. The learned Tribunal decreed the claim petition against the appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal before this Court. The claimant/appellant-Mansavi Jain has also preferred an appeal No.484 of 2006 before this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 11. Heard Sri A.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant/D.T.C., Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant No.1, Sri Manish Dalakoti holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation has confined his submission to this aspect that the liberty by the Tribunal against the appellant has wrongly been fixed. He has submitted that the offending bus in question was insured with National Insurance Company on the date of accident, therefore, in any case, the liberty would be on the Insurance Company, not on the Delhi Transport Corporation. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent/National Insurance Company has made the rival contention by submitting that in case, if the bus belonging to Delhi Transport Corporation, was insured with Insurance Company, even then the liability to pay the compensation would lie upon pay Delhi Transport Corporation and not with the Insurance Company. In order to support his contention he has cited a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Kailash Nath Kothari reported in (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 481. 14. I have gone through the record of the court below and I find that the offending bus in question bearing No. DL1PA/311 was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident i.e. 26.10.2004. The Insurance Policy is available on record, which is paper No. 11C and it clearly indicate that the vehicle in question was insured with the National Insurance Company form 03.03.2004 to 02.03.2005. The policy paper No.11C has not been denied or rebutted by the Insurance Company in any manner. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the offending bus in question was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident. 15. On careful scrutiny of the judgment cited before me by the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company, I am of the view that cited decision does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the person case and the same does not extend any for the Insurance Company. 16. As it is quiet clear form the evidence on record that offending bus in question was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident, hence the liability to pay the Compensation as awarded by the Tribunal rests on the shoulders with the Insurance Company and not with the Delhi Transport Corporation/appellant. 17. For the reasons stated above, the A.O. No. 602 of 2006 and A.O. No. 603 of 2006 filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation are allowed. 18. The impugned judgment and orders dated 07.07.2005 passed by the M.A.C.T./ Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Claim Petition Nos. 23 of 2005 and 24 of 2005 is liable to be modified upto the extend that the amount of compensation is payable by the National Insurance Company Ltd. and not the Delhi Transport (appellant). 19. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the claimant/appellant/Mansasvi Jain for enhancement of the same. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the salary certificate, which is annexed as 41 B to the paper book has rightly come to the conclusion that the claimant was getting Rs. 26,924/- per month and after deduction of Rs. 11,140/- towards G.P.F. house rent, G.I.C. and income tax respectively, it comes to Rs. 15,784/- per month. Further the Tribunal, after considering the age of deceased adopted the multiplier of 8, which is justified as per the latest pronouncements of the Apex Court. In this way, the Tribunal granted Rs. 10,10,176/- (15784 X 2/3 X 12 X 8) as compensation in favour of the claimant and further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards mental pain, which in total it comes to Rs. 10,25,176/-. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation appears to be perfectly justified. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal filed by the claimant- Manasvi Jain lacks merit and is laible to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the appeal No. 484 of 2006 is dismissed. 21. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 22. Let the copy of this judgment be placed in A.O. No. 603 of 2006 and A.O. No. 484 of 2006. 26.3.2008 (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ASWAL