IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 51 of 2008 Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation ...Appellant Versus Satya Prakash and others ...Respondents Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate on behalf of Mrs. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for appellant Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents no. 1 & 2 Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for respondent no. 4 Dated: 08-05-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-UASRTC, against the judgment and award dated 18.10.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/First Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 41 of 2006, Satya Prakash and another versus Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the claim petition are that on 23.1.2006 at 10.00 a.m. claimants’ son Dheeraj Kumar was going to Bazpur from his home in his Motorcycle No. U.A.06/0435 and when he reached in front of gate of I.G.L. Sugar Plant, a Roadways Bus No. U.A.04/1381 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently came from the side of Bazpur and dashed the motorcycle of Dheeraj Kumar (deceased), due to which deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to 2 those injuries. The deceased was 28 years of age at the time of his death and was working on the post of Senior Researcher and was getting a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month from the said job. Therefore, the claimants claimed minimum a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation as per the provisions given in Schedule 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act. Opposite party no. 1-Uttaranchal Transport Corporation and opposite party no. 4-Shamsher Singh, the owner and the driver of Roadways bus No.U.A.04/1381 filed their separate written statements denying the contents of the claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that on 23.1.2006 bus of answering respondent was being plied by its driver slowly and carefully at Rudrapur-Kashipur road and accident was caused due to own negligence of deceased-motorcyclist while he was overtaking another motorcycle and both were collided with each other and motorcyclist- deceased sustained injuries and subsequently he died. Opposite party no. 2-Pramod Kumar, owner of motorcycle no. U.A.06/0435 filed his written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that he is the registered owner of motorcycle no. U.A.06/0435 and on the date of accident deceased was plying the said motorcycle. It has also been stated that deceased was having valid driving licence at the time of accident and he was driving motorcycle in question in a moderate speed and accident occurred on account of rash and negligent 3 driving of driver of Roadways bus. It has further been stated that motorcycle in question was insured with The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident; therefore, liability to pay the compensation is of Uttaranchal Transport Corporation. Opposite party no. 3-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. filed its written statement denying the contents of the claim petition for want of knowledge. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that insurance company had not been given any information of the accident under Section 156(3) of M.V. Act. The insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as driver and owner of vehicle were not having valid documents and there was no proof of income of deceased supported by documentary evidence. 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 entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.14,60,500/- against opposite party no. 1-UASRTC, along with interest of 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 18.10.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant i.e. UASRTC has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4 Heard Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate on behalf of Mrs. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel for appellant, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for claimants-respondents no. 1 & 2, Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 4-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and perused the record. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has dealt with this point while deciding issue no. 1 in the impugned judgment and award. The learned Tribunal considered the entire evidence adduced before it and thereafter came to the conclusion that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Roadways Bus No. U.A.04/1381, in which motorcyclist deceased-Dheeraj Kumar sustained injuries and succumbed to those injuries instantaneously. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this respect does not require any interference and same is hereby affirmed. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the amount of compensation by taking reasonable annual income of deceased into account. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. The claimants have examined Radhey Shyam Gangwar as PW-3 who has produced the documents pertaining to the income of the deceased. The multiplier of ‘13’, which has been adopted by the Tribunal in this case, appears to be on higher side. The deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. The age of father and mother of the deceased are 50 years and 48 years respectively. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the parents of 5 the deceased multiplier in this case cannot travel more than ‘10’. After adopting the multiplier of ‘10’ the total amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants comes to Rs.1,12,000 x 10=Rs.11,20,000/-. The other amount awarded by the Tribunal under the funeral expenses as well as loss of love and affection amounting to Rs.2000/- and 2500/- respectively, shall remain intact. The rate of interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award shall also remain intact. On the basis of the aforesaid assessment of evidence, I am of the view that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.11,20,000/- + Rs.4500/- =Rs.11,24,500/- as compensation along with interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award. In view of the above, appeal is liable to be partly allowed. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.11,24,500/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation (instead of compensation of Rs.14,60,500/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal) along with interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP