IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 532 of 2007 National Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Versus Smt. Pushpa & others … Respondents And Appeal From Order No. 585 of 2007 Smt. Pushpa & others … Appellants Versus Rajendra Sharma & another … Respondents Sri Prabhat Pande, Advocate, for appellant/insurance company Sri Mohd. Azim, Advocate, for claimants/respondents no. 1 to 4 Dated: April 8, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 06.09.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C. Case No. 286 of 2004. The claimants-Smt. Pushpa and others preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation on account of death of Mangal Singh in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants, on 5.11.2003 the deceased-Mangal Singh was going to Kashipur from Bangali Colony through cycle. At about 8.00 p.m. in front of a Dhaba (Restaurant) near Kashi Vishwanath Steel Factory on Kashipur-Bajpur road he was dashed by Truck No. UHJ-9049 from the 2 rear side, due to which, Mangal Singh sustained serious injuries on his person and he succumbed to his injuries in Government Hospital, Kashipur. The claimants have pleaded that at the time of accident the deceased was 38 years of age and was working as Cleaner/Helper over the truck of Salvinder Singh and used to earn Rs. 3500/- per month. The claimants have thus claimed for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation. The opposite party no. 1 owner of offending truck filed written statement refuting the contents of claim petition. He has pleaded that he is the registered owner of Truck No. U.H.J./9049 and his vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident. He also took additional plea that on 5.11.2003 he himself was driving the said vehicle having valid driving licence and at the time of accident he was holding the valid permit, Goods Tax and Fitness etc. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. The opposite party no. 2-insruance company filed written statement stating therein that it was not given any information by claimants or owner of the vehicle with regard to alleged accident. It has pleaded that no liability to pay the compensation could have been fastened upon insurance company as no papers relating to the vehicle involved in accident were valid at the time of accident and the alleged vehicle was not holding valid driving licence, therefore, the claim petition filed against the insurance company is liable to be dismissed. 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 material available before it and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 3,93,500/- as compensation, in favour of claimants, against opposite party no. 2- National Insurance Company Limited, along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition i.e. 31.12.2004 till the date of actual payment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal before this Court. The claimants have also preferred Cross Appeal before this Court for enhancement. Heard Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company, Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for claimants-respondents no. 1 to 4 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as well as in selecting the multiplier which is on higher side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the learned Tribunal awarded meager amount of compensation and the same should be enhanced by this Court. 4 I have gone through the impugned award. Perusal of record and evidence reveals that the age of the deceased at the time of accident, on the basis of post mortem report, was 40 years. The income of the deceased as has been assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month. I do not find any reason to disturb the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to monthly income of the deceased and it is taken to be Rs. 3000/- per month as has been indicated in the impugned judgment and award. In case, if the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs. 3000/- per month, then out of this amount 1/3rd of the amount is to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased, then financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 2000/- per month and if this amount is multiplied by ‘12’, the annual financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 2000 x 12=Rs.24,000/- per annum. Keeping in view the age as well as the income of the deceased, in case if the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Versus S. Rajpriya & others, reported in 2005 (4) SC 87, is taken into account, then multiplier of ‘12’ would be just and reasonable and if the aforesaid multiplier of ‘12’ is applied in this case, the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants, comes to Rs. 24,000 x 12= Rs.2,88,000/-. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid calculation, the amount of compensation to be granted to the claimants, should be Rs.2,88,000/-, 5 instead of Rs.3,93,500/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. In view of above discussion, the appeal is liable to be allowed partly and cross appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Eighty Eight Thousand Only), instead of Rs.3,93,500/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. Rest of the findings recorded by the Tribunal shall remain intact. Cross appeal No. 585 of 2007 filed by claimants is dismissed. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant-insurance company at the time of filing the appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No.585 of 2007. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP