IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 168/2007 Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through its Regional Manager, Dehradun .. Appellant. Vs. Smt. Baleshwari and 8 others … Respondents. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nikhlesh Joshi, Advocate for the respondent/claimants. Dated: 14-8-2008 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 31.1.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/I F.T.C./Additional District Judge, Roorkee, in MACP No. 111/2002. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that the claimants/respondents, being the mother and sister of deceased Amit Kumar, has filed claim petition in lieu of death of Amit Kumar in a motor accident. According to them on 17-12-2001, at about 4.30 P.M. Amit Kumar was travelling in Mohindra Jeep No. U.P. 14-J- 3502 from Tikola to Manglaure. At the Tiraha of Village Kuradi Roadways bus U.P. 7-C/6792 dashed the jeep in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the passengers travelling in the jeep sustained injuries. Amit Kuma also sustained grievous injuries and died. The deceased was 21 years of age and after completing his education upto 9th standard, he was doing work with Shrikrishna of village Seetalakhera on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,500/-. The deceased also used to 2 sell honey and his earning from this profession was Rs. 4,000/- per month. 3- The opposite party No.1, U.P.S.R.T.C. contested the petition by filing its written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The SRTC alleged that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligence of bus driver, but it was occurred due to own fault of jeep No. U.P. 14-J/3205, as the said jeep tried to overtake another vehicle and dashed with the bus of the Corporation and the jeep XGX 893 coming behind the said jeep in a high speed also dashed the jeep, due to which both the jeep went down in the ditch. 4- The opposite parties 2 and 3 did not contest the petition and the case proceeded exparte against them. 5- The opposite parties 4,5 and 6 are the legal heirs of the owner/driver of offending jeep No. UP 14-J- 3502, who also died in the accident. They alleged that the accident was caused by Roadways Bus. The jeep at the time of accident was insured with New India Assurance Company and they are not liable to pay compensation. 6- The opposite party No.7, New India Assurance Company filed written statement and alleged that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence of Roadways bus. It also alleged that the offending jeep was allowed for private use and at the time of accident it was carrying passengers, therefore, the terms of insurance policy were breached. 3 7- Opposite party No. 8 also did not contest the claim and the case was heard exparte against him. 8- The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The Tribunal after considering the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a compensation of Rs. 1,72,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment against the U.P.S.R.T.C. 9- Feeling aggrieved, the U.P.S.R.T.C. has preferred this appeal before this Court. 10- I have heard leaned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents and perused the record. 11- The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the accident took place between the bus of the Corporation and the Jeep No. UP 14-J-3502 due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and thereby committed a manifest error in fixing the liability upon the owner of the said bus. He also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased without having any documentary evidence in this regard. 12- After going through the entire material available on record, I do not find any force in the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The eyewitness of the accident P.W.2, Satish has been examined in the petition from the side of the claimants. In his examination-in-chief he has deposed that the 4 accident has occurred due to the rash and negligence of the offending bus. He further deposed that the driver of the bus U.P.07-C- 6792 was driving the bus in a fast speed. In the cross-examination this witness has denied the suggestion that the jeep U.P. 14-J-3502 dashed with another jeep, but he stated that a jeep was behind Jeep No. U.P.14-J-3502. He has further deposed that the jeep was well within the control of the driver. He further alleged that at the place of accident the road was wide enough. Although the driver of the offending bus D.W.1, Mahipal Singh has alleged that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence of the jeep driver, but this statement is belied from the site-plan brought on record, according to which the accident has occurred towards right side of the driver of offending bus. Further, this witness D.W.1, Mahipal Singh has admitted that charge sheet has been submitted by the police against him relating to the accident. He also admitted that at the place of accident the road is 20 feet wide. Therefore, in view of the independent and reliable evidence of P.W.2, and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the bus driver responsible for the rash and negligence in the accident. 13- As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants could not prove the income of the deceased, hence the annual notional income of Rs. 15,000/- was taken for assessing the dependency of the claimants upon the decieased. The tribunal also deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and took the net dependency of Rs. 10,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased in the post mortem report was shown as 22 years and the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 17, which in any way cannot be said to be 5 unjustified. Therefore, the total dependency was assessed Rs. 10,000/- X 17= Rs. 1,70,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, the grand total being Rs. 1,72,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. I do not find any illegality in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14- For the discussion made above, I do not find any substance in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 31-1-2007 is confirmed. 16- Let the statutory amount deposited in this appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. ISB (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 6