IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 565 of 2005 Smt. Anandi Devi & others … Appellants Versus Kishan Singh & others … Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, for the appellants Sri M. K. Goyal, Advocate, for respondent no. 3 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 order dated 21.5.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/6th Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in MACT Case No. 166 of 2003, Smt. Anandi Devi & others Vs. Kishan Singh and others. Briefly stated the facts, according to the claimants, are that on 6.8.2003 deceased Jagat Singh was starting his journey from Ghaziabad to Dehradun through Truck bearing Registration No. U.P. 14 Q 3133. On 7.8.2003 at about 8.45 a.m. when the said vehicle reached near Bindra Farm at Haridwar road, suddenly a bus came from the opposite side and truck driver tried to save it but collided another vehicle-Truck No. U.P. 7A 2920 loaded with bricks, to its left side, with the result, the deceased-Jagat Singh sitting in Truck No. U.P. 14Q 3133 died on the spot, whereas Prem Singh, cleaner of said truck sustained grievous injury on his person and died on the way to Doon Hospital, Dehradun. The claimants have pleaded that Truck No. U.P. 14Q 3133 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. They have also pleaded that at the time of accident deceased-Jagat Singh used to earn Rs. 3000/- per month from work of clerk and besides this he also used to do work of Astrology, home tuition and he used to earn about Rs. 5000/- per month. The claimants thus claimed for a sum of Rs. 25,10,000/- as compensation. The opposite party no. 1-driver of offending truck filed written statement admitting the factum of accident but denied that accident occurred due to rash and negligence of truck driver. He has pleaded that he was plying the vehicle slowly and carefully but while the vehicle was turning near Brinda Farm at Haridwar road suddenly a bus came on the wrong side rashly and negligently. The opposite party no. 1 in order to save the said bus turned his vehicle to the left side but another vehicle-Truck No. U.P. 7A 2920 was standing near curve to the left side of the road. The truck driver immediately stopped the vehicle by applying the brake but unfortunately the brake had failed and vehicle collided with Truck No. U.P. 7A 2920. The opposite party no. 1-driver of offending truck was not at any fault. He also pleaded that in case, if any liability is fixed upon Vehicle No. U.P. 14 Q 3133, then insurer of said vehicle-opposite party no. 2-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is liable to pay compensation. The opposite party no. 3-insurance company filed written statement and denied that the offending vehicle was not insured with it at the time of accident. The driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. It has further pleaded that the statements made by claimants are false and baseless and claimants are not entitled to get any compensation. 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. 3,36,000/- as compensation, in favour of claimants, along with interest @ 5% per annum, payable by opposite party no. 3-Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri M. K. Goyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has contented that the Tribunal has committed mistake by not taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased and wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the compensation be enhanced after taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased claimed in the petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurance company has supported the approach adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation and submitted that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal is already on higher side and it need not be enhanced. After having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned award, I do not find any infirmity in the award. Perusal of record reveals that PW-3 Rahul has stated in his deposition that deceased used to earn Rs. 3000/- per month as salary from Deepak Transport Organization Ghaziabad and this fact has also been proved by paper no. 22-B. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month. After deducing 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the financial dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs. 2000/- per month. The record further reveals that the age of deceased-Jagat Singh at the time of accident, as per High School Certificate, was 38 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken a right approach in adopting the multiplier of ‘14’ keeping in view the age of the deceased and in this way, the total amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 2000 x 12 x14=Rs. 3,36,000/- by the Tribunal, which appears to be quite justified and does not require any interference by this Court. In view of above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP