IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 58 of 2007 Smt. Manju Aggarwal & others … Appellants Vs Sri Manik Babar & another … Respondents Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 30.05.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/IInd Fast Track Court, Nainital in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 283 of 2004 where by the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 9,36,674/- in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.04.2004 at about 07:30 p.m., Mukesh Kumar (deceased) was going on Rampur Road on his scooter bearing registration No. DBK/7207. When he reached near Kanta Petrol Pump, Rampur Road, a Marshal jeep bearing registration No. MH10C/9204, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner hit the scooter and ran away from the place of accident. In this accident, Mukesh Kumar sustained serious injuries and he was admitted in the Base Hospital, Haldwani and from there he was referred to Bareilly Keshlata Hospital where he was died on 14.04.2004. At the time of the accident, the deceased was working as a Sub- Engineer (Civil), Rajkiya Nirman Nigam and used to earn Rs. 12,926/- per month as salary. The claimants are the dependents of the deceased. Hence the claimants filed claim 2 petition before the Tribunal concerned for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-. 3. The opposite party No. 1 – owner of the Jeep in question contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal concerned. He has pleaded that on the date of accident, he was having the valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. therefore, the liability, if any, for compensation lies upon the Insurance Company. 4. The opposite party No. 2 – Oriental Insurance Company also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement with the Tribunal concerned denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It has alleged that the Jeep in question was not responsible for the accident while the accident took place due to negligence of the scooter driver. Therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed against it. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. 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 decreed the claim petition to the tune of Rs. 9,36,674/- in favour of the claimants/appellants vide judgment and award dated 30.05.2006. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants/claimants preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. 3 7. Heard Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 8. The claimants have produced Smt. Manju Aggarwal (P.W.1) – wife of the deceased and Sri Shakil Ahmad (P.W.2) in support of their case. On the other side Sri Manik Babar was produced as D.W.1 before the Tribunal concerned. Sri Shakil Ahmad (P.W.2) has stated in his statement that he was the eyewitness of the accident. On 12.04.2004, he was standing at Davelchor Petrol Pump and he saw that scooter No. DBK/7201 was going towards Transport Nagar, suddenly, a Marshal Jeep No. MH10C/9204, which was going from Haldwani to Rampur hit the said scooter from behind, due to which the driver of the scooter fell down on the kachha road. He has further stated that on the date of accident, the scooter was going extreme left side of the road. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep in question. Whereas the owner of the Jeep has stated in his statement that he was driving the jeep very slowly, when he turned the jeep on his right, the scooter dashed with the Jeep and fell down the earth. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence as well as after perusing the entire material available on record comes to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep in question. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of quantum. He has stated that the Tribunal has committed illegality by not considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 12,926/-. He alleged that making permissible deductions, the deceased was getting 4 Rs. 11,486/- per month as salary. The Tribunal has assessed the wrong income of the deceased while calculating the amount of compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has made the rival contention before the Court. He has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount of compensation. He has invited my attention towards paper No. 28C/3 which is a last pay certificate. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. Perusal of the paper No. 28C/3 reveals that the deceased was getting Rs. 10,396/- as net salary at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered salary of Rs. 10,396/- of the deceased in order to calculate the amount of compensation. In this way the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,24,752/- and on rounding the same, it comes to Rs. 1,25,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 83,334/-. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 50 years whereas according to the claim petition the age of the deceased was 48 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal after scrutinizing the entire material considered the age of the deceased as 50 years at the time of accident and adopted the multiplier of ‘11’ in order to calculate the amount of compensation. After adopting the multiplier of ‘11’, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 9,16,674/-. Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses and further Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the total amount of compensation 5 comes to Rs. 9,36,674/-, which appears to be just and proper. The amount of compensation needs no interference. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 05.08.2008 ASWAL