IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 258 of 2006 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation .. Appellant. Vs. Praveen Bhatia and others .. Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. L.K. Tewari, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent. Dated: 24-04-2008 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 4-2-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/V F.T.C., Dehradun, in MACT Case No. 152 of 2004. 2- Brief facts of the case are that claimant Praveen Bhatia on 16.5.2003 was going to his home from Dehradun side riding in his Santro Car No. U.P. 07K- 2442 and when he reached near Raja Ram Mohan Rai School, Bus bearing registration No. U.P. 07-F-4867 coming from Saharanpur side in a high speed, dashed the Santro Car, due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately brought to C.M.I. Hospital Dehradun, where he remained admitted from 16.5.2003 to 5.6.2003. The claimant filed petition for award of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. 3- The Opposite Parties filed written statement and alleged that the accident has occurred due to own negligence of Car driver. Plea of non-joinder of insurer of the car as party has also been raised in the written statement. 4- The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter parties adduced evidence. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 4,20,097/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of final payment, payable by Uttaranchal Transport Corporation. 5- Feeling aggrieved, the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has filed this appeal before this Court. 6- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident was the result of contributory negligence but the Tribunal has wrongly held the sole negligence on the part of Bus driver. He also alleged that the compensation has been awarded on higher side and against the evidence on record. 7- Perusal of record reveals that the Tribunal has framed issue Nos. 1 and 2 on the point of negligence. The driver of the offending bus Jagir Singh @ Jagdish has been examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties as D.W.1. This witness although has deposed that at the time of accident his bus was standing at the spot and the claimant himself dashed his car to the bus but this statement of the driver is against the documentary evidence filed on record. Paper No. 35-C/1 to 35-C/4 photos of the spot show that the bus was going in the middle of the road. Further, at the spot there is no bus stop. In the evidence produced in the criminal case pertaining to the instant accident, it has come that the bus at the time of accident was not standing on the road but it was in motion and was being driven in the middle 2 of the road. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the bus was being driven in the middle of the road in a high speed due to which the accident has occurred. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that if the bus was standing on the road, then the car would not have gone on the rough surface of the road. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the point of negligence on the part of the Bus driver. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on this point has no substance and the same is rejected. 8- As far as the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal after detailed discussion of the evidence available on record has assessed the annual income of the claimant as Rs. 70,000/- and I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal in assessing the annual income of the claimant. 9- The age of the claimant at the time of accident was 30 years as has been indicated in the document pertaining to permanent account number. The multiplier which has been adopted by the Tribunal in this case is 18 which is certainly on higher side in view of the decision of 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 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. 3 10- In the instant case, keeping in view the age of the claimant, the multiplier of ‘12’ in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited above, would be just and proper. Therefore, after adopting the multiplier of ‘12’ the total amount comes to Rs. 70,000/- X 12 = Rs. 8,40,000/-. 11- The disability certificate filed by the claimant indicates that he has become permanently disabled upto an extent of 25% as his right lower leg has been shortened by 1 ½ inches. The evidence also indicates that the claimant suffered a lot of complications after receiving the injuries and his working capacity has also been reduced. Keeping in view the permanent disability caused to the claimant on account of the injuries the financial loss thus comes to 8,40,000/- X ¼ = Rs. 2,10,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- on account of the financial loss to be caused to him in future due to the permanent disability. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,097/-, which is rounded to Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of medical expenses and I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering and mental agony which also appears to be justified. The rate of interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award shall remain intact. Therefore, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,10,000/- + Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- = Rs. 3,15,000/-. 12- For the discussion made above, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 13- Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 4-2-2006 is 4 modified upto the extent that the claimant shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of final payment, instead of Rs. 4,20,097/-, as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 14- The statutory amount of compensation, if any, deposited at the time of filing the appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. ( B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5 6