IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 323 of 2006 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Smt. Maya Devi & others .. Respondents Sri V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate, for appellant. Sri Kishor Kumar, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 to 3 Dated: May 7, 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 22.03.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Champawat, in M.A.C. Case No. 38 of 2005, Smt. Maya Devi and others vs. Shri Diwan Singh and another. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, before the Claims Tribunal, for grant of compensation, on account of death of deceased-Shivram, husband of claimant- respondent no. 1,Smt. Maya Devi in a motor accident. According to the claimants, on 15.6.2005 when deceased-Shivram was going at Khatima- Tanakpur road, Jeep No. UP-25-9813 being driven rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased- Shivram, due to which deceased died at the spot itself. The claimants have pleaded that at the time of accident the deceased was 32 years of age. The deceased was a permanent Government employee and was drawing a salary of Rs.6,882/- per month. 2 The opposite party no. 1-Sri Diwan Singh is the owner of offending Jeep No. UP-25-9813, which was insured with opposite party no. 2-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.14,10,928/- as compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite party no.1-Sri Diwan Singh, owner of offending Jeep, filed his written statement denying the contents of claim petition. He has pleaded that claim petition has been filed on wrong facts and claimants had never claimed any compensation from opposite party no. 1. He has further pleaded that at the time of accident vehicle was having all valid papers and it was insured with opposite party no. 2-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. He has also pleaded that deceased died in the accident due to his own fault. He has further pleaded that his vehicle was comprehensively insured for third party risk. He has further pleaded that the compensation, if any, is payable, the same shall be the liability of opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. It took additional plea that no information of the alleged accident was given to the insurance company by opposite party no. 1. It has further pleaded that it is the liability on the part of opposite party no. 1 to produce the certificate of validity of all papers relating to offending vehicle. It has also pleaded that at the time of accident driver of offending Jeep in question was not having valid driving licence and the said vehicle was being plied in violation of conditions of 3 permit. At the time of accident offending jeep was not validly and effectively insured with insurance company. The claim petition has been filed by the claimants in collusion with opposite party no. 1. The driver of offending vehicle was not made party. The amount of compensation as well as interest thereon has been claimed by claimants excessively. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 Tribunal after having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition in favour of claimants for a sum of Rs.8,51,968/-, payable by opposite party no. 2-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., along with an interest @ 6% per annum. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-insurance company has preferred the appeal before this Court. Heard Sri V.K. Kohli, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Kishor Kumar, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and perused the record. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding the amount of compensation by adopting the multiplier of ‘17’, as 4 for the age of 32 years the multiplier can at best be ‘13’. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award thoroughly. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, it appears from the impugned judgment and award that the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘17’, which appears to be on higher side in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the case, reported in 2007(1) T.A.C. 795 (S.C.), New India Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Kalpana and others, in which the multiplier of ‘13’ has been adopted on the age of 33 years. In the present case also, the multiplier in light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, should be ‘13’ instead of ‘17’. As far as income of the deceased is concerned, the evidence on record shows that on the date of accident deceased-Shivram was posted as Peon in Revenue Department. The claimants also filed pay certificate of deceased which shows that deceased was drawing the salary of Rs.6,213/- per month at the date of accident. Thus, the Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased at Rs.6,213/- per month, which comes to Rs.6,213 x 12=Rs.74,556/- per annum. The finding of the Tribunal for assessing the income of the deceased is not liable to be disturbed. After deducting 1/3rd out of that amount, the total financial dependency of claimants comes to Rs.49,704/- (rounded Rs.49,700/-). After adopting the multiplier of ‘13’ keeping in view the age of parents the total financial dependency of claimants comes to Rs.49,700 x 13=Rs.6,46,100/-. 5 The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of ‘loss of company’ as Rs.5000/- and ‘funeral expenses’ as Rs.2000/-, shall remain intact. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, I come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.6,53,100/- as compensation. The interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award shall remain intact. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that claimants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.6,53,100/- (Rupees Six Lacs Fifty Three Thousand One Hundred), instead of Rs.8,51,968/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award shall remain intact. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP