IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 428 of 2006 Smt. Khatoon Begum and others .. Appellants. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others .. Respondents. Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Manish Dalakoti, holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Dated: 05-05-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 9-5-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, U.S. Nagar, in MACT Case No. 162 of 2003. 2- Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 31-5-2003, Mohd. Umar was cleaner on Truck No. U.P. 21-L- 9925 and the said Truck was going to Jaleshwar from Gopiwala transporting the luggage. At about 4 A.M. the said Truck dashed with a tree in order to save the vehicle coming from opposite side and the cleaner Mohd. Umar sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. According to the claimants the age of deceased Mohd. Umar at the time of accident was 38 years and his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. 3- The Opposite Party No.1, owner of offending Truck filed his written statement and has admitted that deceased Mohd. Umar was cleaner on the said Truck and his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. He also alleged that the offending Truck was insured with United India 2 Insurance Company and the vehicle had valid documents. 4- The Opposite Party No.2, United India Insurance Company also filed its written statement and denied the allegations made in the petition. It alleged that the owner of the vehicle did not inform the Insurance Company about the accident, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 5- The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the petition. Parties, in support of their cases, adduced evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition against the United India Insurance Company for compensation of Rs. 2,15,000/-. The Tribunal directed to pay the amount of compensation within 30 days, failing which interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable from the date of award till the date of actual payment. 6- Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement, before this Court. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased contrary to the evidence on record. According to him the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/-, whereas the Tribunal has taken it as Rs. 2,000/- per month. Therefore, the compensation is liable to be enhanced. 3 9- On the other learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned award and alleged that the Tribunal has calculated the dependency of the claimants on the basis of the documentary evidence brought on record, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be maintained. 10- After having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Although the claimants in their claim petition have mentioned the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- but there is copy of resolution on record, passed by Avon Kargha Udhogic Utpadan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Moradabad ( paper No. 26-C/3), according to which the deceased was appointed as Cleaner on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/-. D.W.1, Abdul Salam, Sabhapati of the said Samiti has proved the said document in his evidence. He has specifically deposed that the deceased was appointed on a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Contrary to this, the claimants have not adduced reliable and cogent evidence in support of their contention. There is no reason to disbelieve the above evidence pertaining the salary of the deceased. I find that the learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the dependency of the claimants on a monthly income of Rs. 2,000/- of the deceased. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 24,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 16,000/-. The deceased was 45 years of age and the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of 13. Therefore, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 16,000/- X 13= Rs. 2,08,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium, which shall remain 4 intact. In this way the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,08,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- + Rs.5, 000/-= Rs. 2,15,000/-. 11- Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and the same should be enhanced. 12- I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award only on the condition if the insurance company fails to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days. In my opinion the interest should be payable to the claimants 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of actual payment, instead of 6% as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 13- For the discussion made above, the appeal is liable to be allowed partly, so far as the rate of interest is concerned. 14- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 9-5-2006 is modified upto the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to get the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,15,000/- from the Opposite Party, United India Insurance Company, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, instead of conditional interest @6% per annum, as has been awarded by the Tribunal. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5