IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 15 of 2008 Madan Lal & another … Appellants Vs Anil Kumaar Khandelwal & others … Respondents Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri T.C. Pande, learned counsel for the appellants Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 Sri H.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 03.11.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 278 of 2006, Madan Lal & another Vs Anil Kumar Khandelwal & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.10.2006 at about 10:00 p.m., the deceased was getting down from the bus and at the same time a car bearing No. UA04C/0004, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased crushed under the wheels of the bus. He was immediately taken to B.D. Pandey Hospita, Mallital, Nainital, where the doctors declared him dead. The deceased was 20 years of young boy and used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing business of canteen on contract basis. The claimants are the parents of the deceased, therefore, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal 2 denying most of the allegations made in the claim petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal has decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancing the amount of compensation. 5. Heard Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri T.C. Pande, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 5, Sri H.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and perused the record. 6. The Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 1 relating to the rash and negligent driving considered the statement of Surendra Singh Bisht (P.W.2) who was the witness of the accident. He has stated that he was the witness of the accident. He has further stated that the accident took place due to negligence of both the vehicles. He has also stated that on the date of accident bus No. DL1P/7573 was standing on the extreme right side of the road and when he started the bus, the deceased getting down from the bus, suddenly, a car No. UA04C/0004, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, due to which he crushed under the wheels of the bus. Sri Madan Lal Arora (P.W.1) who has also stated that the accident took place due to negligence of both the vehicles. On the basis of the 3 evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rightly held that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. The Tribunal fastened the responsibility upon the driver of the bus as 30% and the car as 70%. The Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the appellants/claimants. 7. As far as the driving licence as well as insurance policy is concerned, from the perusal of the record, it reveals that driver of both the vehicles were having the valid and effective driving licence. It is also not disputed that the bus in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and car in question was insured with Iffco Tokio. The Tribunal, on the basis of the above documents has decided this issue, which does not require any interference. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of quantum. He has stated that the Tribunal without considering the cogent and documentary evidence available on record considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/- per month. He has further submitted that the deceased was running a canteen in the Civil Court Compound, Nainital and he was getting Rs. 6,000/- per month. In this way, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 9. So far as the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal did not consider documentary evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased, it appears to be quite false. The claimants have not produced any documentary evidence, which may show the actual income of the deceased. Only on the basis of the statement, it cannot be said that he was getting Rs. 6,000/- by that canteen. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal 4 after deducting financial expenditure, considered his annual income as Rs. 28,000/-. As far as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal considering the age of the parents as well as in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman Iyer & another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of ‘10’. After adopting the above procedure, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,80,000/-. Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards love and affection. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,95,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,95,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. 10. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified which cannot require any interference at this stage. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 01.10.2008 ASWAL