IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 188 of 2008 Sevak Singh & another … Appellants Vs Kishore Singh Rautela & another … Respondents Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 08.10.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 33 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,18,200/- in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.07.2006 at about 05:00 p.m., Sewak Singh and his father Mor Singh was traveling in vehicle No. UP07C/4464, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, due to which it met with accident, in which Mor Singh received serious injuries and later on he died in the hospital. The deceased was running a merchant shop and used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month. The claimants are the dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, they filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 13,38,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party No. 1 (owner & driver of the vehicle in question) has contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal admitting this fact that on the date of accident, he was the driver of the vehicle in question 2 but denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving. He has further pleaded that on the date of accident, he was having the valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company. 4. Opposite party No. 2 – New India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal alleging therein that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question. It has further pleaded that the claimants mentioned the income of the deceased as well as amount of compensation on a higher side. It has further alleged that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having the valid driving licence and the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of policy. Therefore, the claim petition against the applicant was liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues, which were discussed in a great detail:- 1. Whether the accident took placed on 20.07.2005 at 5 p.m. at Badan Gadhera Khala Name Tok in village Sunehrigad within Patwari Circle Devtadhar, District Tehri Garhwal due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. UP07C/4464 (Bus) by its driver/owner resulting death of Sri Mor Singh as alleged? 2. Whether the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence 3 registration and fitness of the vehicle on the date of accident as alleged by opposite party No. 2 in pargraph No. 8 of its written statement? If so, its effect? 3. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and from which of the opposite parties? 6. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their cases. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,18,200/- as compensation vide judgment and award dated 08.10.2007. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancing the amount of compensation. 8. Heard Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 9. The Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 1 relating to the rash and negligent driving has considered the statement of Jaspal Singh, Sewal Singh and also considered the postmortem report etc. and held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. Here, the dispute is not related to the rash and negligent driving. The appellants are the claimants and filed this appeal for enhancing the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed this appeal 4 only on the point of quantum. As far as the documents pertaining to the vehicle in question are concerned they are genuine. On the date of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability of compensation has rightly been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal while calculating the income of the deceased has considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and the Tribunal has committed error by not taking into consideration the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Therefore, the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. 11. In order to solve the controversy raised by learned counsel for the appellants, I have to go through the entire record. From the perusal of the entire record, I find that there is no proof of income, which may show the actual income of the deceased. According to the claim petition, the deceased running a shop but there is no evidence on record, which may show his monthly income. As far as the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation has assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum, which is on lower side, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 24,00/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the same comes to Rs. 1,600/- per month. In this way the annual dependency of the claimants/appellants 5 comes to Rs. 19,200/-. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased between 50 to 55 years at the time of his death adopted the multiplier of ‘11’, which appears to be quite justified. After adopting the multiplier of ’11’, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,11,200/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards love and affection. In this way the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,18,200/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly reasonable. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. 12. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants before the Court. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. Consequently, with the aforesaid observation made by me in the body of the judgment, the cross objection filed by the New India Insurance Company Ltd. is dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 24.09.2008 ASWAL