IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 186 of 2007 Smt. Sakina Begum & others … Appellants Versus Sri Ganesh Singh Bargali & another … Respondents Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for appellants Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: September 2, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both the parties have agreed that the matter be disposed of finally. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the appellants-claimants, against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2006 passed by MACT/Addl. District Judge/Fast Track Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, in M.A.C. Petition No. 120 of 2005, Smt. Sakeena Begum and others versus Ganesh Singh Bargali and others. Brief facts of the case as narrated in claim petition are that on 05.07.2004 the deceased-Hafiz Rafeeq was travelling in Bus No. U.A.04A-2877 on its way from Pithoragarh to Ramnagar. When the Bus reached near Petsala, District Almora about 10.30 a.m., it fell down into a deep ditch due to rash and negligent driving of driver, on account of which Hafiz Rafeeq died at the spot. An F.I.R. was lodged about this with P.S. Almora and post- mortem was also done. The deceased was 40 years 2 of age and was earning Rs.5000/- per month by teaching Arbi and Urdu in Madarsa. Opposite party no. 1-owner of vehicle, Ganesh Singh Bargali filed his written statement and stated that vehicle in question was being driven by experienced driver in a slow speed. At the same time, a vehicle came from opposite direction driven by its driver rashly and negligently. The driver of vehicle of answering opposite party took his vehicle to safe, but the other vehicle dashed it from the back and due to impact it went down into a deep ditch. The vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. from 24.03.2004 to 23.03.2005 and if any liability arises then the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd. filed its written statement and pleaded that driver of alleged vehicle No. U.A.04A-2877 had not valid driving licence and vehicle as per registration certificate and permit was passed for 30 persons including driver and conductor, but at the time of accident more than 44 persons were travelling in the vehicle. Hence, answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The claim is highly excessive, arbitrary and without any reasonable formula, hence, deserves to be dismissed against answering opposite party. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire 3 evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of 3,21,500/- against opposite party no. 2- National Insurance Co. Ltd. The Tribunal further directed that the amount of compensation is to be paid by the insurance company within a period of one month, failing which, claimants shall also be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of petition till realization, vide judgment and award dated 29.11.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellants-claimants have preferred the present appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for appellants-claimants, Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-insruance company and perused the record. As far as factum of accident is concerned, it is established from the evidence available on record that the accident took place on 05.07.2004 at about 10.30 a.m. near Petsala, District Almora and at the time of the accident the driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this respect does not require any interference. The Tribunal has further held that evidence available on record also establishes this aspect that all the papers of the vehicle were valid and driver had a valid driving licence and it was insured with 4 National Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal appears to be justified and requires no interference. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has submitted that learned Tribunal committed an error in assessing the monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,000/-, whereas his monthly income of deceased was Rs.5,000/- from the work of teaching Arbi and Urdu. As far as amount of compensation is concerned, claimant-Sakina Begum deposed that deceased was 40 year old teacher in a Madarsa and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but the claimant did not file any document about the income of deceased. The Tribunal in absence of any cogent evidence with regard to income of deceased, taken into consideration the average daily wages of deceased at Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per month and thus the annual income of deceased has been worked out to Rs.36,000/-. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal appears to be justified and needs no interference. By deducting one-third of said amount as personal expenses of deceased, the dependency of claimants was assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. The deceased was 50 years of age at the time of accident and in view of II Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier of ‘13’ has been awarded by the Tribunal. By multiplying the above amount of Rs.24,000/- with multiplier of ‘13’, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,12,000/- to the claimants. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/- for loss of Estate and Rs. 5 2,000/- for funeral expenses and thus, the total amount of compensation of Rs.3,21,500/- has been awarded to the claimants. The Tribunal, in my opinion, has not committed any illegality in calculating the amount of compensation. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has also submitted that learned Tribunal wrongly awarded only 9% interest on the awarded amount while it should be enhanced to 12% per annum. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable as the Tribunal has already awarded interest at the rate of 9% and the same cannot be said to be on lesser side. The Tribunal has also given opportunity to the insurer to deposit the awarded amount within a month and in case the amount has been deposited within that period, interest will be received by the claimants on that deposited amount from the concerning Bank and in case of default there is direction of the learned Tribunal to pay interest from the petition till the date of actual payment. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the claimants would have not suffered under the head of the interest. Here it would be relevant to clarify that in the case of deposit of the awarded amount within stipulated time the claimants will be able to get the amount in lump sum at the earliest stage. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP