IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 43 of 2007 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation … Appellant Vs Smt. Nanda Devi & others … Respondents Sri Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Dinesh Gahatori, learned counsel for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 24.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Champawat in M.A.C.P. No. 36 of 2005, Smt. Nanda Devi & others Vs Uttaranchal Transport Corporation & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sri Jagdish Singh (deceased) was working as a driver in UPSRTC, Lohaghat Depot. On 04.06.1996 between 04-05:00 p.m., Jagdish Singh was driving the bus No. UGP/4719 and the bus met with an accident at Harkhera, District Champawat in which, Jagdish Singh died. At the time of accident, he was 51 years of age and used to earn Rs. 4,240/- per month as salary. The claimants are the dependents upon the deceased. Therefore, they have filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal concerned. 3. Opposite party No. 1 contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal concerned denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It has alleged that the claimants were granted aid by the office. It has also pleaded that there was technical fault in the bus and the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the 2 bus. It has further pleaded that the claimants filed this petition after a long time on false allegations and is liable to be dismissed. 4. The notices were issued to the opposite party No. 2 but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 – UPSRTC, therefore, the case against him proceeded ex-parte. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,80,120/- vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2006. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Sri Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dinesh Gahatori, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of the record, it has come to my notice that the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation pleaded that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the bus but from the opposite party No. 1 did not produce any evidence in order to support their version. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the accident was not occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus. As far as the liability of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of compensation upon the Uttaranchal Transport 3 Corporation as the bus in question was being plied under its control. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has committed error while calculating the monthly salary of the deceased. It has further contended that an interim relief of Rs. 20,000/- were paid to the widow of the deceased after the death of Jagdish Singh but the Tribunal failed to adjust that amount while awarding the compensation. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record as well as circumstances of the case, rightly awarded the amount of compensation. It requires no interference at this stage. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire record. From the perusal of the paper No. 10C/1 which shows that the deceased was getting Rs. 4,240/- per month as salary. The Tribunal in order to calculate the amount of compensation rightly taken into consideration Rs. 4,240/- as monthly salary and annual salary comes to Rs. 50,880/- (12 X 4240). After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency of the family members comes to Rs. 33,920/-. According to the claim petition, he was 51 years of age at the time of the death, therefore, the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased between 50-55 years adopted the multiplier of ‘11’ as per schedule mentioned in the Motor Vehicle Act, which appears to be quite reasonable. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,73,120/- (11 X 33920). Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of 4 consortium, Rs 2,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,80,120/- (373120 + 2000 + 3000 + 2000). The amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be quite reasonable. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 12. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 18.08.2008 ASWAL