IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 419 of 2006 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ….Appellant Versus Sammi Uddeen @ Washem and another …..Respondents. Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, learned counsel for respondent/claimant. None has appeared for respondent No.2. Dated: 08-05-2008 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 10-4-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J./First F.T.C., Haldwani, in MACT Case No. 53 of 2005. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 1-6-2004, at about 1-00 P.M. claimant Sammi Uddeen, was standing in front of Maulana Mohd. Ali Jauhar Hospital, Rampur waiting for the bus. Suddenly Truck No. U.A. 04-A/8076 came there from Rampur side at a high speed and dashed the claimant from behind, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted in Government Hospital, Rampur. Due to serious condition the injured was referred to Soban Singh Jeena, Base Hospital, Haldwani, He was operated for the injuries on his left hand. According to him, he spent about one Lac rupees on his treatment. The claimant claimed Rs. Four Lacs due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 3- The Opposite Party, New India Assurance Company filed written statement and alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license. It also alleged that the exorbitant amount of compensation has been claimed by the claimant. 4- The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the petition. The claimant adduced evidence in support of his case. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal after perusing the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,23,400/- payable by New India Assurance Company and directed to deposit the amount within one month, failing which the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment shall be payable. 5- Feeling aggrieved the New India Assurance Company has preferred this appeal. 6- The claimant also filed cross objection for enhancement of compensation. 7- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on assumption and conjecture. The claimant has failed to prove his monthly income of Rs. 3,000/-, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 9- On the other hand learned counsel for the claimant /objector submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation and the same should be enhanced. 10- In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned judgment and considered the evidence on record. 11- The claimant P.W.1, Sammi Uddeen has deposed before the Tribunal that on 1-6-2004 when he was standing near Maulana Mohd. Ali Jauhar Hospital, Rampur side at a rash and negligent manner and dashed him from behind, due to which he sustained injuries on his head and legs. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Rampur and looking his precarious condition, he was referred to Soban Singh Jeena, Base Hospital, Haldwani, where he remained admitted upto 18-6-2004. Thereafter, he was admitted in Joshi Bone Hospital, Haldwani and remained there for four days. The claimant filed medical bills amounting to about Rs. 14,000/- and this amount was awarded by the Tribunal. The tribunal, however, rejected the bills for a sum of Rs. 1,680/- on the ground that the same are not certified by the doctor and have not been got proved by the claimant. For purpose of calculating the loss due to disability the Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs. 36,000/- and adopted the multiplier of ‘18’. In my opinion the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is certainly on higher side. The claimant at the time of accident was 29 years of age. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kalpana and others, reported in 2007(1) T.A.C. 795, has adopted the multiplier of 13 on the age of 33 years. In view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case the multiplier cannot be more than ‘13’ in any case and after adopting the multiplier of ‘13’ the loss of income comes Rs. 36,000/- X 13 = Rs. 4,68,000/-. The percentage of disability is 30, therefore, the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 1,40,400/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards suffering due to grievous injuries and Rs. 10,000/- for future treatment, which appears to be justified. In this way the total compensation to be awarded comes to Rs. 14,000/- + Rx. 1,40,400/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 1,69,400/- instead of Rs. 2,23,400/-. 12- The interest indicated by the Tribunal in the impugned award is conditional which does not appears to be justified. The amount of compensation awarded to the claimant shall be payable by Insurance Company along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 13- For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 14- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 10-4-2006 is modified upto the extent that the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs. 1,69,400/- instead of Rs. 2,23,400/-. The interest @ 7.5% per annum shall also be payable on the above amount of compensation from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 15- The cross objection filed by the claimant is dismissed. 16- The amount of compensation deposited before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. The excess amount deposited by the appellant, if any, be released in favour of the Insurance Company, (B.C. Kandpal J.) ISB