IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 53 of 2006 Sri Jameel Ahmad and two others .. Appellants. Vs. Sri Trilok Singh Bisht and another .. Respondents. Mr. I.S. Mehra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.1. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 Dated: 06-05-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 8-11-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Additional District Judge/II F.T.C., Nainital, in MACT Case No. 43 of 2005. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 2-3-2005 at about 4.30 P.M. Jalil Ahmad after doing his work was returning his home. When he reached near Indra Nagar bypass, the driver of Dumper No. UA-04/8871 dashed him due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died in Soban Singh Jeena Hospital, Haldwani. He was 22 years of age at the time of his death and was doing the work of a labourer. 3- The owner of the offending vehicle filed his written statement and alleged that the vehicle was being driven by a experienced driver at a moderate speed. The vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company, hence he is not liable to pay compensation. 4- The New India Assurance Company filed written statement and alleged that the vehicle had no fitness certificate, road tax was also not deposited, and it had no valid permit. Therefore, breach of insurance policy was committed, and the insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 5- The learned Tribunal, on the pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- compensation payable by New India Assurance Company along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 6- Feeling aggrieved the claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement. 7- None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. Heard Sri I.S. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle and perused the record. 8- I have gone through the impugned award. The learned Tribunal has recorded the finding that the death of Jalil Ahmad has occurred due to the rash and negligent of the driver of Dumper No. UA 04-8871. The opposite parties have not disputed the death of Jalil Ahmad in a motor accident. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged at the Police Station, Haldwani on the date of accident itself and it has been mentioned therein that the driver of the Dumper dashed the deceased in a rash and negligent manner. The opposite parties did not 2 adduce any evidence to rebut the contention of the claimants. I do not find any illegality in the finding of the Tribunal holding that the death of deceased Jalim Ahmad has occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of offending Dumper. The learned Tribunal also recorded a categorical finding that the documents pertaining to driving license, cover note, registration permit etc have been filed and they were valid documents, therefore, the liability to pay compensation is on the shoulder of the insurer. The finding of the Tribunal is based on the documentary evidence and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 9- As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, it appears to me that the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The deceased was unmarried person at the time of his death. He was working as a mason in Gola River for digging the sand. The income of the deceased could not be established by the claimants by adducing any cogent and reliable evidence. However, in these types of cases the notional income of the deceased is to be taken into account and in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Shobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company and another, decided on 1.11.2006, the notional income should be taken as Rs. 36,000/- due to hike in price and after deducting 1/3rd from the notional income, as personal expenses of the deceased, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The age of the parents of the deceased is 58 and 55 respectively. In case if the mean is taken into account then it comes to 54. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya & Ors, reported in 2005(4) Supreme 87, in 3 which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has adopted the multiplier of ‘12’ where the deceased was 38 years of age, and in the case of The Managing Director, TNSTC Vs. Sripriya & Ors., reported in 2007(5) Supreme 301, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court applied the multiplier of ‘12’ where the deceased was 37 years of age. Keeping in view the age of the parents of the deceased and the above propositions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the multiplier of ‘6’ would be just and proper in the present case. After adopting the multiplier of ‘6’ the total amount to be awarded in favour of the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000/- X 6= Rs.1,44,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of love and affection and further a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of expenses towards funeral expenses and I am of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the aforesaid heads, appears to be justified. The total amount of compensation thus comes to Rs. 1,54,000/-. 10- The Tribunal has directed in the impugned judgment and award that out of total awarded amount a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to claimant Km. Shamim which shall be deposited in some nationalized bank for a period of five years and I do not find any ground to interfere with this observation made by the Tribunal. The interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award shall also remain intact. 11- For the reasons stated above, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 12- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 8-11-2005 is modified upto the extent that the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants 4 should be Rs. 1,54,000/- instead of Rs. 1,38,000/- along with interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5 6