IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 472 of 2007 Smt. Reena Devi & others …Appellants Versus Bharat Singh & others …Respondents Sri B.S. Negi, Advocate for appellants Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate for respondent no. 3 Dated: September 17, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both the parties have agreed that this matter be decided finally. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 29.8.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 57 of 2006, Smt. Reena Devi & others versus Bharat Singh & others. Brief facts of the case as narrated in claim petition are that on 8.7.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. deceased-Virendra Singh was going to Devidhar from Chamba (Tehri Garhwal) by Bus No. U.A.07-C- 9232. The said vehicle was being driven by its driver-opposite party no. 1 rashly and negligently. When the said bus reached near Nalupani at Rishikesh-Gangotri motor road, it fell into Bhagirthi river, due to which Virendra Singh and 21 other passengers died at the spot. The deceased-Virendra 2 Singh was 27 years of age at the time of his death and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.31,19,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, against the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1-driver of offending vehicle filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been pleaded that on the date of accident opposite party no. 1 i.e. driver was driving the bus carefully, but due to sudden technical fault in the bus the accident had taken place. It has also been pleaded that opposite party no. 1 was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. It has further been pleaded that on the date of accident opposite party no. 1 was employee of opposite party no. 2 and on his instructions he was driving the said vehicle. Therefore, the liability to pay the amount of compensation, if any, is either of opposite party no. 2-owner of vehicle in question or of opposite party no. 3-insurance company. Opposite party no. 2-owner of offending vehicle filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been pleaded that on the date of accident the said vehicle was being plied by opposite party no. 1 carefully, who was having valid and effective driving licence and the said accident occurred due to sudden technical failure in the bus. The offending vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 3-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which was valid w.e.f. 5.4.2006 to 4.4.2007. The said insurance policy was also effective on the date of accident. Therefore, the 3 liability to pay the amount of compensation, if any, is of insurance company. Opposite party no. 3-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition. It has been pleaded that the said accident did not take place due to negligence of opposite party no. 1, rather it occurred due to sudden technical fault in the bus and therefore the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. It has also been pleaded that at the time of alleged accident registration certificate, fitness certificate and permit etc. relating to said vehicle were not valid and effective and therefore insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.2,07,000/- in favour of claimants, against opposite party no. 3-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., along with interest @ 6% per annum, vide judgment and award dated 29.08.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 29.08.2006, the appellants-claimants have preferred the present appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. 4 Heard Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for appellants-claimants, Sri M. K. Goyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed all the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has recorded a categorical finding that vehicle No. U.A.07-C-9232, by which deceased-Virendra Singh was travelling along with his family members, was being plied by its driver rashly and negligently, due to which the said accident had occurred and Virendra Singh sustained injuries on his person and subsequently succumbed to those injuries. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. The Tribunal has further held that the offending vehicle was insured with The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident and driver of offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal has also held that all the papers relating to said vehicle were valid and effective on the date of accident. As far as amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of claimants is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum which is admittedly on lower side in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Shobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company and another, decided on 1.11.2006. The Division Bench of this Court in 5 view of price hike at present days, has taken into account the notional income of a person as Rs.36,000/- per annum. Therefore, in this case also, the notional income of deceased is taken into consideration as Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting one-third out of notional income, financial dependency of claimants thus comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of his death. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the deceased, a just and proper multiplier to be adopted in the present case, would be ‘16’, instead of ‘18’ as has been adopted by the Tribunal. In case, if the multiplier of ‘16’ is adopted in the present case, then the amount of compensation comes to Rs.24,000 x 16=Rs.3,84,000/-. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses as well as a sum of Rs.25,000/- as loss of love and affection. The amount awarded under the aforesaid heads by the Tribunal does not require any interference by this Court. On the basis of aforesaid calculation, the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants comes to Rs.3,84,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-=Rs.4,11,000/-. The amount so awarded is to be paid to the claimants by the insurance company i.e. insurer of offending vehicle in question along with interest as has been indicated in the impugned judgment and award. 6 With the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that claimants-appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,11,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Eleven Thousand only) as compensation (instead of Rs.2,07,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal) along with interest as has been indicated in the impugned judgment and award. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP