IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 175 of 2006 Basanti Devi & another … Appellants Versus Smt. Kamla Rana & another … Respondents Sri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate for appellants Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: June 13, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of award of compensation, against the judgment and award dated 23.12.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge Pithoragarh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 113/2004, Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Kamla Rana and another. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.9.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. deceased-Ramesh Singh Rana was traveling in vehicle-Maruti Car No. U.A. 05/3258. The said vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The vehicle on its way near G.I.C. door, P.S. Munsyari, fell into a deep gorge. In the accident, Sri Ramesh Singh Rana died on the spot. At the time of his death, deceased was aged 25 years and was earning Rs.5000/- per month. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.18,59,500/- as compensation along with interest against the opposite parties. 2 The opposite party no. 1-Smt. Kamla Rana filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition. She has pleaded that the registered owner of vehicle in question i.e. Maruti Car No. U.A.05/3258 was her husband-late Sher Singh Rana and the said vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. w.e.f. 15.5.2004 for a period of one year. She has also pleaded that on 14.9.2004 when her husband was coming to home from Quiti, near G.I.C. door the said vehicle fell into a gorge, due to which her husband and a person died. At the time of accident her husband himself was driving the said vehicle and he was having all valid papers and valid driving licence. She has further pleaded that information was given to insurance company with regard to accident immediately and a survey was got conducted by insurance company. She has also pleaded that at the time of accident her husband- Sher Singh Rana was driving the vehicle carefully and he was not at fault. The said vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. The opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. It has pleaded that vehicle in question was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy and it was not having valid papers at the time of accident. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 3 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.3,12,600/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. The Tribunal further directed that amount payable to the claimants shall be paid by the insurer of offending vehicle i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd., vide judgment and award dated 23.12.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellants-claimants have preferred the appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-insurance company and perused the record. The sole ground involved in the appeal is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate or not. The record reveals that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimants have not been able to prove the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has therefore recorded a finding that in the prevailing circumstances available on record the daily income of the deceased could be assessed at 60 to 70 4 Rupees. The Tribunal has thus calculated the income of the deceased as Rs.2100/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd out of it as personal expenses of the deceased, the financial dependency of the claimants has been worked out as Rs.1400/- per month i.e. Rs.16,800/- per annum. As far as the way by which calculation of compensation has been made by the Tribunal and the principle adopted for reaching to the conclusion in order to award the amount of compensation by the Tribunal is concerned, the same appears to be unreasonable and it is not based on settled principle of law. In view of the decision of the 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 notional income of a person in which the exact income has not been proved, should be considered as Rs.3000/- per month. In the instant case also, I come to the conclusion that the notional income of the deceased should have been taken into consideration and thus after deducting 1/3rd out of Rs.3000/-, the financial dependency of claimants comes to Rs.2000/- per month and thus the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.2,000 x 12=Rs.24,000/-. The multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased as 25 years has been adopted by the Tribunal as ‘17’ which also appears to be on higher side in view of the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court given in the cases of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Versus S. Rajpriya & others, reported in 2005 (4) SC 87, The Managing 5 Director, TNSTC versus Sripriya & others, reported in 2007(5) Supreme 301 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana (Smt) and others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 94. I am of the view that in view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court the adequate and proper multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased should be ‘14’ and after adopting the aforesaid multiplier of ‘14’ the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants comes to Rs.24,000 x 14=Rs.3,36,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of funeral expenses as well as loss of consortium, love and affection, appears to be justified and needs no interference. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants comes to Rs.3,36,000 + Rs.27,000=Rs.3,63,000/-. The interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award shall remain intact. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants shall be Rs.3,63,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Sixty Three Thousand only), instead of Rs.3,12,600/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 6