IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No. 130 of 2005. Judgement reserved on: 18.3.2009. Date of decision: March 20, 2009. Sanjeev Sharma & anr. ….. Appellants. Vs. Kesar Singh & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The appellants have come in appeal against award dated 11.1.2005, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Solan camp at Nalagarh, in MAC Petition No. 47-NL/2 of 2002, awarding Rs.2,74,000/- compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization with a direction to pay the awarded amount to respondents No. 1 to 4 as per their shares mentioned in the operative part of the impugned award. The appellants were held liable to pay the award amount and respondent No. 5- insurer is to indemnify the liability to the extent of Rs.50,000/- of the award amount. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondents No. 1 to 4 legal representatives of Om Parkash, filed claim petition claiming Rs.7,00,000/- compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till realization, on account of death of Om Parkash in an accident involving scooter No. HP-12A-0701 owned by appellant No. 1 which was being driven rashly and negligently at the time of accident by appellant No.2. Om Parkash was a pillion rider on the scooter, which met with an accident at place Bhud, Tehsil Nalagarh, on 23.9.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. Om Parkash sustained multiple injuries in the accident and died on the spot, FIR No. 115, dated 24.9.2002 was registered at Police Station, Barotiwala. The deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month in all from his job and shop. Initially in the petition one Kamlesh Devi was also impleaded as petitioner, but later on her name was deleted. 3. The petition was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing reply in which they have admitted that appellant No. 2 was driving scooter No. HP-12A-0701 at the relevant time, but it was denied that he was driving the scooter rashly and negligently. It has not been denied that Om Parkash was a pillion rider on the scooter at the relevant time. According to appellants, accident took place as Om Parkash put his foot on the kick lever of the scooter, which caused the accident. The scooter was insured with respondent No. 5 at the time of accident. The amount claimed is excessive. The compensation, if any, is to be paid by the insurer. 4. The respondent No. 5- insurer contested the petition by filing reply and took preliminary objections and submitted that in case …3… scooter is found to be insured with respondent No. 5 in that event liability of the insurer shall be as per the terms of the policy. The appellant No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the scooter at the time of accident. On merits, the income of the deceased was denied with further submission that exaggerated amount has been claimed in the petition. The learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:- 1. Whether on 23.9.2002 at about 9.30 at Bhud, the respondent No. 2 was driving the scooter No. HP- 12A-0701 rashly and negligently and as such caused death of Om Parkash? …OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? ….. OPP. 3. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the scooter? …. OPR-3. 4. Relief. The issue No. 1 was answered in the affirmative and issue No. 3 in negative and while deciding issue No. 2, an award of Rs.2,74,000/- was passed in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4, as noticed above, hence the present appeal by the owner of the scooter as well as by the person, who was driving scooter at the time of accident. 5. I have heard Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. It has been fairly submitted …4… by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per policy Ex.RW 1/A, the liability of respondent No. 5- insurer is limited to Rs.50,000/-, but he has submitted that excess amount of compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal to respondents No. 1 to 4. The multiplier of 15 applied is on the higher side. 6. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2200/- per month, which keeping in view the evidence on record is just and reasonable and not on higher side. This amount was being shared by respondents No. 1 to 4 and deceased. The respondents No. 3 and 4 at the time of filing of petition were minor and others were major, therefore, in these circumstances, on the basis of unit system the share of deceased from Rs.2200/- would come to Rs.550/- and it can be safely assumed that rest of the amount was being spent on respondents No. 1 to 4. The Tribunal without assigning any reason after assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2200/- per month took his income for the purpose of quantification at Rs.2,000/- per month. The Tribunal further from Rs.2,000/- per month deducted 1/3rd amount on account of personal expenses of the deceased and assessed annual dependency of respondents No. 1 to 4 at Rs.17,500/- and after applying multiplier of 15, awarded an amount of Rs.2,64,000/- compensation to respondents No. 1 to 4 on account of death of Om Parkash, another amount of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded on account of conventional charges and in this way total amount of Rs.2,74,000/- was awarded as compensation. …5… 7. The income of the deceased is taken at Rs.2200/- per month and after deducting Rs.550/- expenses of deceased, the dependency of respondents No. 1 to 4 comes to Rs.1650/-. Per month. The age of the deceased in para-3 of the petition has been mentioned as 35 years, which has not been denied by the appellants in their reply to the petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jashuben and others 2008 (4) SCC 162 has allowed the multiplier of 13 when the age of the deceased was 35 years. In the present case, Om Parkash was 35 years old at the time of his death and even if multiplier of 13 is applied then amount comes to Rs. 1650 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 2,57,400. The Tribunal has awarded conventional amount of Rs.10,000/- to respondents No. 1 to 4 without indicating various heads of conventional amount. In my opinion, this amount is also on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents No. 1 to 4 are entitled to conventional amount of Rs.20,000/-. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,77,400/- instead of Rs.2,74,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have accepted the award. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the higher side. Hence, no interference can be made in the impugned award. 8. No other point was urged. 9. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. March 20, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.