IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 206 of 2007 1. Smt. Suman Sood W/o Late Devendra Sood 2. Ashish Sood S/o Late Devendra Sood 3. Km. Astha Sood D/o Late Devendra Sood All the above name are R/o B- 90 Nehru Colony Dharampur, Dehradun. …Appellants Vs. 1. Sudheer Kumar Sharma S/o Suraj Dev Sharma R/o 175 Rajpur Road, Dehradun 2. Pankaj Chopra R/o 32 Kishanpur, Dehradun. 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Dehradun …Respondents Sri M.S. Bisht holding brief of Sri Gopal Narayan, learned counsel for the appellants Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2002 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Dehradun in M.A.C. No. 9 of 2000 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.1999, the deceased- Davendra Kumar Sood on his scooter bearing No. UP07D/ 2882 going towards Rajpur Road from D.L. Road suddenly Tata Truck No. UP07G/4402, which was being driving by its driver in very rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter of Davendra Kumar Sood due to which, he sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in the Doon hospital at Dehradun and thereafter, on 05.01.2001 died due to these injuries. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 50 years and he used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month salary as a driver. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition for awarding compensation. 3. The respondents- driver of the truck, owner of the truck and Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing their written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues, which discussed in great detail. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available before it, allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum or Rs. 1,32,000/- in favour of the claimants as compensation vide judgment and order dated 05.02.2002. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancing the aforesaid award of compensation. 5. Heard Sri M.S. Bisht holding brief of Sri Gopal Narayan, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and perused the record. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, I am of the view that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition discussed each and every point in great detail. So far as the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any force in the same. The Tribunal has deducted 20% of the total compensation towards contributory negligence, which is just and proper from my point of view. As far as the monthly income is concerned, the claimants/appellants has not produced any document, which would show the actual monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the calculation of the Tribunal appears to be quite justified. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in-limine. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.03.2008. ASWAL