IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 716 of 2006 Smt. Shashi Devi & others … Appellants Vs Ramesh Singh & others … Respondents Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellants Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 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 07.08.2006 passed by Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P.No. 121 of 2005, Smt. Shashi Devi & others Vs Ramesh Singh & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.07.2003, the deceased – Suresh Singh after finishing his duty from M/s R.R. International (Export Firm) coming to his home. He was standing on the side of the road in order to wait for bus at bus stand, suddenly, a truck bearing registration No. UP21G/9005, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which he died at the spot. According to the claimants, he was the only bread earner of their family. It has further pleaded that he was 27 years of age and used to earn Rs. 3,300/- per month. The claimants are the dependents upon the deceased. Therefore, they filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement before the Tribunal. Thereafter both the parties led evidence in support of their 2 case. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 3,12,400/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 07.08.2006. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 5. Heard Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 6. While deciding the issue No. 1, the Tribunal has considered the evidence of Chandrabhan (P.W.2), who has stated that he was coming along with Vipan Kumar on a motorcycle from Pitalnagari. When he reached near Gagan bypass at Village Lakari Majra, suddenly a truck No. UP21/9005, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the pedestrian from the back, due to which, he died at the spot. He was the independent eyewitness of the accident and the Tribunal mainly on the basis of the evidence of this witness came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question. The findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent do not require any interference. From the perusal of the issue No. 2 relating to the driving licence of the driver of the truck, the Tribunal on 3 the basis of the paper No. 38C and 16C/2, which is photocopy of the driving licence of the driver of the truck in question. In my opinion, the Tribunal on the basis of the document available on record held that the driver of the truck in question was possessing the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has pressed this appeal only on the point of quantum. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error by not assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 3300/- per month. In order to support his version, he has submitted that the claimants mentioned the monthly income of the deceased in the claim petition as Rs. 3,300/- but the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased Rs. 2,000/-, which appears to be on the lower side. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurer has made the rival contention and has submitted that the claimants have not produced any document pertaining to the income of the deceased. The Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence available on record has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record. As far as the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. The Tribunal decided the issue No. 3, in order to calculate the amount of compensation. From the perusal of the record, it has come to my notice that the claimants have not produced any document, which reveals the actual income of the deceased. In the absence of any 4 document pertaining to his salary, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd on the same, it came to Rs. 1,400/- and the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 16,800/-. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the deceased was 25 years of age and the Tribunal considering the schedule mentioned in Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 considered the multiplier of ‘18’, which appears to be quite justified. On the basis of the aforesaid calculation, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,02,400/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount awarded by the Tribunal comes to Rs. 3,12,400/- as compensation. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence as well as facts and circumstances of the case has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. The amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. 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.) 12.12.2008 ASWAL