IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 299 of 2004 1- Kiran Kumar Gulati S/o Sri Chandra Kumar Gulati 2- Smt. Renu Gulati w/o Kiran Kumar Gulati. 3- Piyush Gulati S/o Kiran Kumar Gulati 4- Richa Gulati D/o Kiran Kumar Gulati All R/o 32/5 Sevak Ashram Road, District Dehradun. …Appellants Vs. 1- Pyare Lal Sharma S/o unknown R/o A-415 Ganesh Nagar-11 Sakarpur Delhi 92 2- Sri Ramesh Chandra S/o Sri Bishan Singh R/o 4273/4, T.R.I. Nagar, Jaimata Market, Delhi 43 3- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi …Respondents Sri J.S. Bisht, holding brief of Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. Dated: March 13,2008 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 16.7.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/2nd F.T.C. Dehradun, in M.A.C.P. No. 149 of 2002, Kiran Kumar Gulati & others vs. Pyare Lal Sharma & another. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 20.4.2002 at 9.00 p.m., when deceased-Darpan Gulati was returning to his home from Rajpur through his motorcycle, a Maruti Esteem Car bearing Registration No. D.L. 01/Y 6316 dashed with motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving of its driver (Ramesh Singh), on account of which Darpan Gulati (deceased) sustained serious injuries and he was admitted in Doon Hospital, Dehradun, but before treatment he died. The claimants have pleaded that at the time of accident Darpan Gulati (deceased) was 22 years of age and used to earn Rs.2838/- per month as Trainee Medical Representative. Therefore, the claimants have prayed for award of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The owner of the offending vehicle filed his written statement refuting the contents of the claim petition. He denied the fact that claimants were dependant upon the deceased-Darpan Gulati. He has also alleged that his vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident. He also alleged that driver of his vehicle (Ramesh Singh) is an expert driver and the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of deceased himself, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident. The Insurance Company filed its written statement refuting the contents made in the claim petition and admitted only that the concerned Maruti Car was insured with it. It took the plea that at the time of accident the driver of offending Maruti car was not having valid driving licence and this petition was filed in connivance with driver and owner of offending Maruti car, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal framed relevant issues on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties and thereafter having considered material available before it, allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,03,368/- against the Insurance Company, along with interest of 6% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment of compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants/ claimants has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard Sri J.S. Bisht, holding brief of Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for Insurance Company/respondent no. 3 and perused the record. I have gone through the impugned award and have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. In the evidence it has come that at the time of accident both the drivers i.e. driver of car and motorcyclist were driving their vehicles in a rash and negligent manner. Had the motorcyclist (deceased) been vigilant, he could have very well avoided the accident. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the contribution towards the negligence with the deceased cannot be overlooked. Hence, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that there is contributory negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident. Therefore, I am of the view that the Tribunal was justified ion holding that negligence on the part of driver of the car comes to 60%, being heavier than motorcycle, while negligence on the part of deceased, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident, comes to 40%. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the evidence on record shows that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident. It is an admitted case that the deceased was unmarried at the time of his death. Therefore, in calculating the amount of compensation the age of parents of the deceased shall be taken into consideration. The age of parents of the deceased at the time of accident has been indicated as 52 years and 42 years respectively. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘10’ which also appears to be justified. However, as far as the income of the deceased, which has been assessed by the Tribunal, is concerned, the same appears to be erroneous. However, the deduction on the income of the deceased which has been made by the Tribunal appears to be erroneous. as per the evidence available on record, the deceased was earning Rs. 2838/- per month as emoluments from the company in which he was employed as Medical Representative. Therefore, keeping in view the income of the deceased, it can be safely inferred that the financial dependency of the parents as well as brothers and sisters of the deceased in this case, should come to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. After adopting the multiplier of ‘10’, this amount comes to Rs. 2,40,000/-. The contributory negligence of the deceased as has been indicated by the Tribunal is 40%, therefore, the claimants are entitled to get the compensation on 60% of the negligence of the offending Maruti Esteem car. Therefore, after calculation, this amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,40,000 x 60% = Rs. 1,44,000/-. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- (Rupees One Lac Forty Four Thousand Only) towards loss of dependency. This amount of compensation is to be paid by Oriental Insurance Company Limited, to the claimants, who is insurer of Maruti Esteem car, along with interest of 6% as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment of compensation. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- already received by the claimants as interim compensation shall be adjusted in this amount of compensation as directed by the learned Tribunal. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP