IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No.813 of 2006 U.P. S.R.T.C. .. Appellant. Versus Nand Kishore and 3 others .. Respondents. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for the claimants/respondents. AND A.O. No.117 of 2007 Nand Kishore and 3 others …Appellants. Versus Managing Director, U.P. S.R.T.C. and another …… Respondents. Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for the claimants/appellants. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondents. UDated: 14-8-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both these appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arise out of the judgment and award dated 19-10-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. 259/2000, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 1-11-2000, Smt. Kamala Devi had come to Kashipur Eye Hospital, riding in the Hero Honda Motorcycle, of her son-in-law. On return, at Lapkana bridge, Bus No. U.P. 02-C-6997, driven by Harbhajan Singh in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Motorcycle, due to which Smt. Kamala Devi sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot itself. The first information report of the accident was lodged by Kapil Singh at P.S. Jaspur. According to 2 the claimants the deceased was aged about 45 years and she used to earn about Rs. 3,000/- per month from the work of taming the animal and by selling milk. The claimants filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 9,10,000/- . 3- The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing written statement, denying the allegations made in the petition. They have alleged that the accident has occurred due to own fault of motorcyclist, as he was driving it at a high speed and at the spot he lost control over the motorcycle and dashed with the bus. The bus driver had no fault. He was driving the bus at a moderate speed. 4- The learned Tribunal, on the pleadings of parties, framed the following issues in the claim petition:- 1- Whether on 1.11.2000, at about 1.30P.M., the accident has occurred near Lapkana bridge on Kashipur-Jaspur Road, due to the rash and negligence of driver of Bus No. U.P. 02-C-6997, in which motorcyclist Smt. Kamala Devi sustained injuries and died? If so, its effect?. 2- Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?. 5- Both the parties produced evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,99,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 5% per annum from 28-3-2006, the date when the claim petition was admitted and till the date of actual payment. 3 6- Feeling aggrieved the U.P.S.R.T.C. has preferred A.O. No. 813/2006. The claimants also filed A.O. No. 117/2007 for enahancement of compensation. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. has submitted that the accident had occurred due to own fault of the driver of the offending motorcycle, the driver of the bus owned by S.R.T.C. was driving the bus at a moderate speed and he had no fault in causing the accident, but the Tribunal has wrongly held liable the S.R.T.C. for paying the compensation, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9- The learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation for the death of deceased Smt. Kamala Devi. He also submitted that the Tribunal awarded low rate of interest. 10- So far as the cause of accident in question is concerned, the claimants have pleaded in the claim petition that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of offending bus. To prove the factum of accident, claimants have produced P.W.1, Nand Kishore and P.W.2, Kapil Kishore. P.W.1, is not an eye witness. However, P.W.2, Kapil Kishore, was the driver of the motorcycle and he had every occasion to see the accident. He has deposed that the bus U.P. 02-C- 6997 dashed the motorcycle. The bus driver was driving the bus at a high speed. On the other hand the driver of the offending bus, Harbhajan Singh D.W.1, has given 4 contrary version and alleged that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the motorcyclist. It is to be noted here that the bus driver did not lodge any report against the motorcyclist and the F.I.R. was lodged by the driver of the motorcycle. D.W.1, Harbhajan Singh has admitted that a criminal case is pending against him in Court at Kashipur pertaining to the present accident.. Copy of F.I.R. has been filed in the claim peititon in which this fact has been mentioned that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of bus driver. Looking to the abovementioned facts, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligence of the bus driver. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the point of rashness of the bus driver. 11- The appeal filed by the U.P.S.R.T.C. has no substance and is liable to be dismissed. 12- As regards the quantum of compensation, the claimant’s version is that the deceased used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month from selling milk and taming the domestic animals, and the learned Tribunal has accepted the above version of the claimants. 1/3Prd P was deducted towards personal expenses, and the dependency was assessed as Rs. 2,000/- per amonth, being Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The claimants have narrated the age of the deceased as 45 years, but the doctor performing the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, has certified her age as 55 years. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 8 on the age of 55, which cannot be said on lower side. In this way the compensation comes to Rs. 24000/- x 8 = Rs. 1,92,000/- . The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- 5 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium. In my opinion the learned Tribunal has awarded a justified amount of compensation of Rs. 1,99,000/- and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 13- However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. The Tribunal has awarded the interest @ 5% per annum which is certainly on lower side and in my opinion the interest should have been awarded @ 7% per annum. 14- In view of above discussion I come to the conclusion that the appeal preferred by the claimants is liable to be partly allowed, so far as the rate of interest is concerned. 15- A.O. No. 813/2006, preferred by UPSRTC is dismissed. 16- A.O. No. 117/2007, preferred by the claimants is partly allowed, so far as it relates to the rate of interest. The impugned judgment and award dated 19- 10-2006 is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,99,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties/appellants, along with interest @ 6% per annum from 23-8-2006, till the date of actual payment, instead of interest @ 5% per annum as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 17- The statutory amount of compensation deposited before this court, be remitted to the tribunal concerned. 6 18- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. 117/2007. ISB (B.C. Kandpal, J.)