IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 43 of 2005 1. Bihari Lal Gaba S/o Bhagwan Dass 2. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Sri Bihari Lal Gaba R/o Village Chakoni, P.S. Kichha District Udham Singh Nagar ... Appellant Vs 1. Sri Gobind Ram S/o Sri Zinda Ram R/o 107 Srinagar Colony Jagdhari District Jamuna Nagar 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Singh Sabhd Road Sabzi Mandi, Delhi 7 Through Regional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Haldwani, District Nainital 3. Sri Narendra Singh S/o Sri Ramavtar Singh R/o Sugar Factory Majhola District Pilibhit, U.P. ... Respondents Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellant Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2004 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Claim Petition No. 216 of 2002 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.09.2002 at about 03:00 p.m., Ramesh @ Neetu (deceased) was going from Kichha to Rudrapur Road on his motorcycle No. UBD/0050. When he reached near Teen Pani Baried, Kichha Road suddenly a truck (Tata 407) bearing No. HR02B/ 1551, which 2 was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which he received serious. He was immediately admitted to maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Rudrapur but the doctors could not save him and he died without receiving any treatment. The claimants/appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased and filed claim petition before the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Sri Govind Ram (driver of Tata 407) as well as Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing their separate statements. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. 4. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record decreed the claim petition in favour of the claimant for Rs. 1,75,000/- against the insurance Company vide Judgment and order dated 28.10.2004. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant/claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. Heard Sri Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company and perused the record. 7. The Tribunal has discussed the Issue No. 1 with regard to the rash and negligence. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the statement of Suraj Gaba, who was the witness of the incident. He was present at the place of incident and 3 also lodged the information with regard to the accident. He has stated that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR02B/ 1551. The Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record as well as relying upon the statement, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR02B/1551. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal while awarding the award did not consider this fact that the deceased was 22 years of age and used to earn Rs. 2,500/- per month, but the Tribunal considered the notational income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. no other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perused the entire documents available before me, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants/claimants has not produced any documents, which may show his monthly income. Therefore, the Tribunal took the annual notional income as Rs. 15,000/- for calculation of compensation and after deducting 1/3rd the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 10,000/-. The tribunal further adopted the multiplier of 17 and thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,70,000/- and the Tribunal further awarded Rs. 5,000/- under different heads then the total amount of compensation comes of Rs. 1,75,000/- which does not require any interference at this stage. I don not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation in favour of the 4 claimants appears to be justified. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 26.03.2008 ASWAL