IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 291 of 2008 Akhtar Hussain … Appellant Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd. … Respondents With Appeal From Order No. 129 of 2008 Harish Chand & another … Appellants Vs Akhtar Hussain & others … Respondents Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the vehicle Sri Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants Sri P.C. Maulekhi and R.B. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.(Oral) Both these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle have been preferred by the appellant/owner of vehicle No. UP03B/1083 as well as appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 10.01.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Champawat in Motor Accidents Claims Petition No. 45 of 2006, Harish Chand & another Vs Akhtar Hussain & others. As these appeals arise out against the same accident and facts are similar, therefore, both these are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.10.2006, at about 07:00 p.m., Suraj Chand was coming from Tanakpur on a motorcycle No. UA03/0416. Another person was sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle. When he reached near Kutri (Chakarpur), a Jeep bearing registration No. UP03B/1083 coming from the Tanakpur side, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the said motorcycle, due to which Suraj Chand died on the spot. 2 According to the claim petition, the deceased was studying in class – IX and he used to earn Rs. 2,000/- to 2,500/- per month by tuitions. The claimants are the parents of the deceased, hence, an amount of Rs. 7,20,000/- was claimed as compensation. 3. Thereafter, notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of the notices, the opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal. 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 cases. 4. 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. 52,250/- along with interest @ 9% per annum against the Insurance Company vide judgment and award dated 10.01.2008. The Tribunal further directed that the Insurance Company will have the right to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the jeep in question. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal before this Court and the claimants/appellant also preferred appeal No. 129 of 2008 for enhancement of the amount of compensation before this Court. 6. Heard Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the jeep, Sri R.B. Agarwal and P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance 3 Company as well as Sri Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimants and perused the record. 7. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed this point while deciding issue No. 1 and the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligence of driver of both the vehicles. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the entire material as well as evidence available on record held the responsibility of 50% of each vehicle involved in the accident. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the point of rash and negligent driving. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the vehicle has confined his arguments only to this aspect that the recoverable right given against the appellant appears to be perverse. He has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal did not consider this aspect that the original driving licence was in the custody of police station, therefore, he could not renew the same in time. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was not having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and for this reason giving the recoverable right to the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has made a rival contention and has submitted that the Tribunal on the basis of the copy of the driving licence available on record rightly held that the driver was not having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly given the recoverable right against the owner of the vehicle in question/appellant. 4 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record available before me, I find myself in full agreement with the finding of the Tribunal. In order to solve the sole controversy, the Tribunal has discussed this point while deciding issue No. 2. In order to support his case, the driver – Nanhe @ Saleem was produced before the Tribunal as D.W.2. He has filed the photocopy of driving licence, which shows that it was issued on 08.05.2000 and was valid upto 07.05.2006 and the accident took place in this case on 28.10.2006, therefore, the driving licence was not valid on the date of accident. This witness – D.W.2 has submitted that on 02.05.2006, when he visited R.T.O., Office Tanakpur for renewal of his driving licence along with the photocopy of the same, the R.T.O., Tanakpur refused the renew the same for want of original driving licence. According to him, the original driving licence was in the custody of police station, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar and on 16.12.2006, the driver paid the challan for a sum of Rs. 500/- before the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima and thereafter, he got his original driving licence and renewed the same on 19.12.2006. In this way, he could not renew the same in time and it cannot be said to be invalid and ineffective on the date of accident. From the perusal of the record, it has come to my notice that the driver of the vehicle in question could not produce any document or letter before the Tribunal which may indicate that he went to renew his driving licence on 03.05.2006, but the office of R.T.O., Khatima refused to renew the same without original driving licence. Therefore, on the basis of non-production of any cogent and reliable evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver was not having the valid and effective driving liccence on the date of accident and given the recoverable right to the insurer of the vehicle. I do not find any ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the Tribunal in holding 5 that the driver of the jeep was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. 11. With the aforesaid reason, the appeal No. 291 of 2008 is dismissed. 12. In appeal No. 129 of 2008, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has committed error while calculating the amount of compensation. He has submitted that the Tribunal adopted the multiplier on the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- whereas the same shall be taken into account as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 13. As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal keeping in view the age of the parents as well as the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman Iyer & another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, the multiplier cannot travel more than ‘10’, which appears to be just and proper. The Tribunal has taken into account the notional income of the deceased, as Rs. 15,000/- per annum as the claimants have not produced any document, which may show the monthly income of the deceased and it is also not disputed that the deceased was 18 years of age and was not doing any job. Therefore, the Tribunal took the annual notional income as Rs. 15,000/- for calculating the amount of compensation and after deducting 1/3rd the financial dependency of the claimant the said amount comes to Rs. 10,000/-. The deceased was unmarried person, therefore, the Tribunal taken into account the age of the parents of the deceased as well as view of the decision of Hon’ble Apes Court (supra) adopted the multiplier of ‘10’. 6 After adopting the multiplier of ‘10’, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,00,000/- (10000 X 10). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,04,500/-. As I have already held in the body of the judgment that both the vehicles are equally responsible for the accident, therefore, after deducting 50% of the amount, the award of compensation comes to Rs. 52,250/-. The Tribunal awarded amount of compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum, which also appears to be justified. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation in favour of the claimants appears to be justified. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, appeal No. 129 of 2008 is also stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant in appeal No. 291 of 2008 be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 16. Let the copy of this order be place in appeal No. 129 of 2008. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 09.07.2009 ASWAL