IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No.495 of 2006 1- Smt. Paramjeet Kaur W/o Late Amarjeet Singh, 2- Km. Amanppreet Kaur minor D/o Late Amarjeet Singh, through natural guardian mother Smt. Paramjeet Kaur. 3- Raghuveer Singh S/o Udham Singh, 4- Smt. Lakhvindra Kaur W/o Raghuveer Singh 5- Km. Sukhjeet Karu D/o Raghuveer Singh, R/o Village Muriakhera The. Thakurdwara District Moradabad (U.P.) …………..Appellants Vs. 1- Regional Manager U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Regional Officer Moradabad U.P. 2- Madan Lal S/o Ram Kumar R/o Mohalla Bhoop Singh, Tehsil Jaspur, District U.P. Nagar 3- Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Officer National Road, Haldwani, District Nainital ………….Respondents Sri B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the appellants. Sri Ramji Srivastava learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. Sri Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate for respondent No.2. Sri B.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Dated: 19-03-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, has preferred against the judgment and awarded dated 23-3-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. of 2003. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 10-4-2003 Amarjeet Singh was driving Bus bearing registration No. U.P. 21/J-9996, belonging to Moradabad Deport., on Ramnagar- Kashipur Motor Road. At about 6.00 A.M., when the Bus reached near Bank Colony, at Railway Crossing, in order to safe an unknown Motorcycle, the Bus collided with a truck No. U.P. -02/7317, which was coming form opposite direction in a very high speed, due to which the driver of the Bus was seriously injured and died in his seat itself. According to claimants the deceased at the time of accident was 33 years old and he was getting Rs. 5000/- per month salary. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. twenty lacs. 3- The U.P. Transport Corporation contested the case and alleged that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the Truck No. U.P. 02-7317. The driver of the Bus was driving the Bus at a moderate speed. It was alleged that the Truck owner and its insure are liable to pay compensation. 4- The Truck owner has shown his ignorance about the accident. However, he alleged that the truck at the time of accident was insured with National Insurance Company and its driver had valid driving license, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 5- The National Insurance Company contested the petition and alleged that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the Bus driver and the offending truck was being driven at a moderate speed. It was also alleged that exaggerated amount of compensation has been claimed. 6- On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues in the clam petition:- 1-Whether on 10-4-2003 at about 6 A:M near Railway Crossing on Kashipur- Ramnagar Road, P.S. Kashipur, accident took place due to rash and negligence of Truck No. U.P. 02/7317, due to which Amarjeet Singh has died?. If so, its effect? 2- To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to get and from whom? 3- Any other relief, to which the claimants are entitled to get? 7- Parties led evidence in support of their case. Thereafter the learned Tribunal on having considered the evidence on record and hearing the parties, allowed the petition for compensation of Rs. 5,35,230/-along with interest @6% per annum form 21.5.2003 to the date of final payment, against the Opposite Party/National Insurance Company. 8- Being dissatisfied with the compensation, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement. 9- The Respondent No.3/National Insurance Company, also filed Cross-Objection against the impugned award in this appeal for quashing of the same. 10- Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 11- Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation. The deceased was 33 years of age and he would have served 27 years more, had he not met with accident and the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the prospects of future such as incensement in salary as well as promotion in service of the deceased. The learned counsel also submitted that multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also on lesser side and low rate of interest has been awarded. Therefore, he urged that the compensation should be enhanced. 12- On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondent No.3/National Insurance Company has submitted that exaggerated sum of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. The accident has occurred due to own fault of the deceased, therefore, the Insurance Company could not have been held liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the cross objection filed by the insurer be allowed and the impugned award against it be quashed. 13- I have considered the rival contensations of learned counsel for the parties. The death of Amarjeet Singh in the accident has not been denied. It is also undisputed fact that the deceased at the time of accident was employed as driver in U.P. Road Transport Corporation, at Moradabad Depot. The monthly salary of the deceased has been proved to be Rs. 5,088-70P after government deductions. The learned Tribunal has taken annual income of the deceased, after making a dedication of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, as Rs. 40,710/-. The deceased at the time of accident was 33 years of age, therefore, the Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the dependents and future prospect of the deceased, adopted the multiplier of ‘13’. In my view the multiplier of ‘13’ has rightly been adopted by the tribunal, keeping in view of the age of the dependents, he future prospects of the deceased and the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point of multiplier. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned awarded, so far it relates to the quantum of compensation. 14- As regards the rate of interest, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum form the date of presentation of petition till the date of final payment. In my opinion the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable rate of interest on the compensation amount and the same does not require any interference. 15- As far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, the offending truck at the time of accident was insured with the National Insurance Company, it has valid registration, fitness and its driver had valid driving license. The learned Tribunal has recoded a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence on the part of truck driver. The accident was so severe that the deceased has died at his driving seat, whereas the opposite parties did not bring on record any fact to show that the driver of the offending truck sustained any injury or the truck was damaged in the accident. The passengers travelling in the Bus also sustained injuries. One of the passengers, Om Pal Singh also filed claim petition No. 251/2003, in which also the Tribunal gave finding that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the truck. In the above circumstance of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal, whereby the offending truck was held responsible for causing the accident in question. 16- For the foregoing reasons the appeal as well as the cross objection, lack merit and are liable to be set aside. 17- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The cross objection filed by the Insurance Company is also dismissed. The impugned judgment and awarded is affirmed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB