IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 347 of 2007 Jagdish Chandra & another … Appellants Vs Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation’ & others … Respondents Sri Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for the appellants None has appeared on behalf of the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 16.06.2007 passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 143 of 2006, Jagdish Chandra & another Vs Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation & others whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in favour of the appellant No. 2 – Smt. Kanta Devi (mother of the deceased). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants are the parents of the deceased who have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for the death of their young son – Jai Chandra in a motor accident. According to the claim petition, on 01.09.2005, the deceased – Jai Chandra along with his uncle – Rakesh Kumar was coming in Motorcycle No. UA04/6372 from Haldwani Roadways Station. Suddenly, Roadways Bus bearing registration No. UP02D/2311 came from Roadways Station, Haldwani in a high speed and dashed the said motorcycle, which was standing at the corner of the road, due to which both motorcyclists sustained serious injuries. Jai Chandra died later on in the Hospital, due to the said injuries. According to the claimants, the deceased used to do the sweeping work on contract and was earning Rs. 7,500/- per month as salary. 2 3. The opposite party/Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal alleging therein that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclists themselves, as the motorcycle dashed the bus from the frond side of the driver. 4. The opposite party/injured who was driving the motorcycle in spite of sufficient service of notice did not appear before the court below, hence, the claim petition proceeded against him ex-parte. 5. The opposite party/United India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition on the ground that the motorcycle in question was being plied against the terms of insurance policy. It has also pleaded that the accident had occurred due to the fault of the bus driver. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation. 6. The opposite party/Sunil Dhyani – driver of the bus also contested the claim petition on the ground that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle and it hit the bus from front side of the driver. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim petition. 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, the Tribunal has decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in 3 favour of the appellant No. 2 – mother of the deceased vide judgment and award dated 16.06.2007. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement. 9. Case called out twice. In spite of sufficient service, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents to argue the case before the Court. Therefore, heard Sri Siddarth Sah, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has committed manifest error in not calculating the amount of compensation of the monthly income of the deceased as alleged by the claimants and wrongly calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. He contended that in view of the rate of inflation and price hike after framing the guidelines of Second Schedule in the year 1989, the notional income should have been calculated at Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants who are the parents of the deceased have already been awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation in lieu of the death of their son – Jai Chandra and the Tribunal in fact awarded the aforesaid amount to the mother of the deceased whereas father was not awarded any sum on account of the reason that he is already in the service and he has stated in his deposition that he and his wife/appellant No. 2 – Smt. Kanta Devi serving in a position as Safai Karamchari in Nagar Palika. It is also important to mention here that he has stated 4 that the deceased Jai Chandra used to maintain his wife and daughter himself and the wife of the deceased is not in any job. Subsequently, Hemlata W/o Late Jai Chandra was arrayed as respondent/defendant in the claim petition by the order of the court. However, on account of the fact that separate claim petition was filed by Smt. Hemlata – wife of the deceased and the Tribunal in that petition has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- and out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was deducted and awarded the same in favour of mother of the deceased/appellant No. 2 – Smt. Kanta Devi. In the appeal filed by Smt. Hemlata, the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2,98,000/- and out of that amount a sum of Rs. 2,58,000/- was directed to be paid to Smt. Hemlata and her minor daughter, while a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was deducted to be paid to Smt. Kanta Devi – mother of the deceased. The amount so deducted has been paid to the mother/appellant No. 2 in the present claim petition/appeal filed by father and mother of the deceased. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and award does not require any interference. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 01.07.2009 ASWAL