IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 166 of 2007 National Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Versus Smt. Alka Rana & others … Respondents Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for appellant Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.3 Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.4 Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no.5 Dated: September 2, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd., against the judgment and award dated 20.02.2007 passed by MACT/District Judge, Dehradun, in MACC No. 159 of 2005, Smt. Alka Rana and others vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.5.2004 deceased-Rakesh Rana hired a Indica Car No. UA 07C-7576 from its owner-Sri Laxman Chand Dimiri for journey from Rishikesh to Dehradun to participate in a marriage and after participating in the marriage at Dehradun, when the said vehicle reached near Forest Barrier, Rishikesh on Dehradun Road at about 2.00 in the night, the driver noticed an animal crossing the road. In the process of avoiding the accident with the animal, the driver lost control on the vehicle and the vehicle hit a tree and turned turtle, with the result deceased sustained grievous injuries and was taken 2 to hospital where he was declared brought-dead. The deceased was a partner of Firm M/s Snowbird Adventures, Dehradun Road, Rishikesh and was earning Rs.6,500/- per month at the time of his death. Opposite party no. 1-insurer of vehicle in question contested the claim and pleaded that this is a collusive petition and opposite party no. 2- Rajesh Kumar was not driving the vehicle at the material time, but the same was being driven by Gaurav Dimri son of owner of vehicle, but he was not holding a valid driving licence and in collusion with the owner of taxi, who is none other than the father-in-law of the deceased. Opposite party no. 2-Rajesh Kumar contested the claim and admitted that at the material time he was drivng the vehicle. He has also pleaded that no negligence in driving was involved in the accident as all of a sudden an animal appeared in front of the vehicle and it was a pure accident. Opposite party no. 3-Ramesh Chand Dimri, owner of vehicle in question contested the claim by filing written statement and admitted the factum of accident and death of deceased in the accident. He also admitted that he was the owner of said taxi car, but the contested the claim on the ground that vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 1- National Insurance Co. Ltd. and its driver-opposite party no. 2 was holding a valid driving licence. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. 3 Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.6,47,000/- along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the actual payment and costs Rs.2000/-, vide judgment and award dated 20.02.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant/National Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present appeal before this Court. Heard Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for appellant, Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.3, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.4, Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no.5 and perused the record. As far as factum of accident is concerned, it is established from the evidence available on record that on 4.5.2004 at about 2.00 in the night the accident occurred on account of rashness of driver of Indica Taxi Car No. UA 07C-7576, in which deceased-Rakesh Rand died. Death of deceased in the said accident is not disputed by the insurance company/appellant before this Court. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard does not require any interference. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company has firstly argued that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 4 The argument advanced by learned counsel for appellant-insurance company does not bear any force. The insurance company did not bother to adduce any evidence before the Tribunal in order to controvert the copy of driving licence filed by the driver before the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no evidence available on record that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The second limb of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side and income of deceased has also been wrongly assessed by the Tribunal. As far as amount of compensation is concerned, the claimants stated in the claim petition that deceased was a partner of Firm M/s Snowbird Adventures and was earning Rs.6,500/- per month from the Firm, whereas as per income tax return filed by deceased for the assessment year 2002-03 the income disclosed of deceased was Rs.78,600/- per annum. The last income tax return was of assessment year 2004-05 and accident took placed on 4.5.2004 i.e. in the assessment year 2005-06 and thus the last return is of assessment year 2004-05. PW-4 widow of deceased has stated in her statement on oath that income of her husband (deceased) was Rs.5,000/- per month and he had no other income from any other source, so as to increase and decrease in his income. The Tribunal therefore assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs.5000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd out of it as 5 personal expenses of deceased, the financial dependency of claimants has been worked out to Rs.40,000/- per annum. I am of the view that financial dependency of claimants has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal and same does not require any interference. As far as multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, the same appears to be on higher side. The deceased was in the age group of 30-35 years at the time of his death. It is true that in view of various pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the cases of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Versus S. Rajpriya & others, reported in 2005 (4) SC 87, The Managing Director, TNSTC versus Sripriya & others, reported in 2007(5) Supreme 301 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana (Smt) and others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 94, the multiplier of ‘16’ is definitely on higher side and in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court pertaining to multiplier, I am of the view that a just and proper multiplier in the present case keeping in view the age of deceased, would be ‘15’. Therefore, after the calculation on the basis of multiplier of ‘15’ the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.40,000 x 15=Rs.6,00,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.7,000/- under other different heads shall remain intact. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that claimants are entitled to get amount of compensation of Rs.6,07,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Seven Thousand only), instead of 6 Rs.6,47,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 7