IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 140 of 2007 Smt. Sapuli Devi & others …Appellants Versus Meharban Singh & another ... Respondents With A.O. No. 597 of 2006 National Insurances Co. Ltd. …Appellant Smt. Sapuli Devi & others ... Respondents In A.O. No. 140 of 2007: Sri Z.U. Siddiqui, Advocate on behalf of Sri Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for appellants/claimants Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no. 2/insurance co. In A.O. No. 597 of 2006: Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for appellant Sri Z.U. Siddiqui, Advocate on behalf of Sri Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for claimants/respondents no. 1 to 3 Dated: September 2, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Since both the cases are arising out of the same judgment and award and common question of fact of law is involved in both the cases, as such, they are being decided by the common judgment. These appeals, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are directed against the judgment and award dated 22.07.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Almora, in M.A.C.T. No. 50/2005, Smt. Sapuli Devi and others vs. Meharban Singh and another. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.11.2004 at about 4.30 p.m. the deceased Lachham Singh 2 was travelling in Vehicle No. U.A.05/2771. At Sheraghat, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle, the vehicle fell in a Khad and Sri Lachham Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to those injuries at the spot. Deceased was 52 years of age and was earning Rs.5000/- per month from agriculture and running of shop. The owner and insurer of offending vehicle contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner of offending vehicle pleaded that driver of offending vehicle in question was not responsible for the accident and accident took place in the process of avoiding of a person who was crossing the road. It has also been pleaded that driver was having proper and valid driving licence on the date of accident. The vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Company Limited with Policy No. 461800/31/04/6304437 from 29.10.2004 to 28.10.2004 and if there is any liability for compensation, the insurance company is liable to pay the same. The insurer, on the other hand, denied the contents of the petition and took the additional plea that it is not sure whether any accident took place or not. The owner of vehicle in question does not make the documents available i.e. registration, fitness etc. to the insurance company. The compensation demanded is very excessive. The petition has been filed by the claimants in collusion with the owner of offending vehicle. It has been further stated that claimant has not given the number of the policy. 3 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 evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of 1,60,600/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 22.07.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the claimants have preferred A.O. No. 140/2007 before this Court. The insurance company has also filed A.O. No. 597 of 2006 before this Court. Heard Sri Z.U. Siddiqui, Advocate on behalf of Sri Dinesh Chauhan, learned counsel for appellants-claimants, Sri D.S. Patni, 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 on 14.11.2004 at about 4.30 p.m. Sri Lachham Singh, who was travelling in Vehicle No. U.A.05/2771, died in the motor accident on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of said vehicle. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard does not require any interference. The Tribunal has further held that evidence available on record also establishes this aspect that 4 driver of jeep in question was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as well as the said offending vehicle was also duly insured with insurance company. It has further been held that no breach of policy is involved in the present case. All these findings recorded by the Tribunal appear to be justified and require no interference. As far as amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has fell in error in calculating the notional income of the deceased as notional income of deceased has been assessed at Rs.2400/- per month. The Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Shobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company and another, decided on 1.11.2006, has held that in view of price hike the notional income of deceased in cases in which the accident took place in the year 2004, should be assessed at Rs. 3000/- per month. Thus, the annual income of deceased comes to Rs.36,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses of deceased, the financial dependency of claimants comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that dependency of the claimants after deduction of 1/3rd as personal expenses of deceased comes to Rs.19,200/- per annum, appears to be wrong and unjustified. I, therefore, of the view that financial dependency of claimants should be assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. The age of deceased at the time of accident was 58 years. The Tribunal has adopted multiplier of ‘8’ keeping in view the age of deceased and I am of the 5 view that multiplier adopted by the Tribunal needs no interference. In case, if the multiplier of ‘8’ is adopted on the amount of financial dependency of claimants i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum, then total amount of compensation comes to Rs.24,000 x 8=Rs.1,92,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of deceased which appears to be justified. The learned Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- under the head of loss of love and affection which also appears to be justified. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that appellants/claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,92,000 + Rs.2,000 + Rs.5,000=Rs.1,99,000/- as amount of compensation, instead of Rs.1,60,600/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum (instead of 6% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal) from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. So far as A.O. No. 597 of 2006 preferred by the insurance company is concerned, it is to be stated here that this Court in the judgment dated 26.09.2007 rendered in A.O. No. 217/2006 filed by National Insurance Company Limited, arising out of same accident, has been dismissed. In that appeal also, insurance company has agitated the point of overloading in the offending vehicle in question. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 26.09.2007, the present appeal i.e. A.O. 6 No. 597 of 2006 preferred by insurance company is liable to be dismissed. With the aforesaid observations, A.O. No. 140 of 2007 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that appellants/claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,99,000/- (Rupees One Lac Ninety Thousand only) as amount of compensation, instead of Rs.1,60,600/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum (instead of 6% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal) from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. A.O. No. 597 of 2006 filed by National Insurance Company Limited, is dismissed. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd. before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 597 of 2006. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP