IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 137 of 2006 1- Smt. Jaira W/o Late Shri Hanif 2- Jamil Ahmad age 12 years S/o Late Shri Hanif. 3- Km. Jareena age 10 years D/o Late Shri Hanif 4- Km. Nisam age 8 years D/o Late Shri Hanif 5- Km. Seem age 6 years D/o Late Shri Hanif appellant No. 2 to 5 (minor) through their natural guardian Mother Jaira W/o Late Shri Hanif, R/o Manpur Uttari, P.S. Swar, District Rampur U.P. …Appellants Vs 1- Nishan Singh S/o Shri Hansa Singh, R/O Village Nababganj, P. S. & Tehsil Swar District Rampur (U.P.) (Registered owner of Holend Ford/Tractor No. U.P. 22-C-4333) 2- Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Haldwani, District Nainital. …Respondents Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 Dated: March 11, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 03.01.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Ist Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C. Case No. 115 of 2004, Smt. Jaira & others vs. Nishan Singh & another. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 25.3.2004 when Hanif (deceased) along with Abdul Kareem was going to Dorahe from Bhabba Nagla on motorcycle, a tractor bearing Registration No. UP - 22 C 4333 coming from opposite direction dashed with motorcycle, on account of which Hanif and Abdul Kareem sustained serious injuries. Abdul Kareem was admitted in Government Hospital, Haldwani where he died. Hanif was admitted in Krishna Hospital Research Center and thereafter he was referred to Sushila Hospital, Haldwani and there during treatment he also died. The claimants have claimed Rs. 50,000/- as medical expenses during treatment of Hanif (deceased). They also alleged that at the time of accident, Hanif (deceased) was aged 40 years and was doing work as labourer and used to earn Rs. 2000/- per moth. Therefore, the claimants have prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,80,000/-. The owner of the offending Tractor filed his written statement refuting the contents of the claim petition. It has been alleged by the owner of the tractor in question that his tractor was being driven by one Rajendra Singh son of Ram Singh and he was having driving licence which was valid from 14.6.2001 to 13.6.2004. At the time of accident, the tractor in question was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. He also denied the amount of insurance as claimed by the claimants. He also alleged that whatever amount of compensation to be awarded in the case, is to be paid by the Insurance Company and not by owner of the tractor in question. The Insurance Company filed its written statement refuting the contents made in the claim petition. It took additional plea that the owner and the driver of the tractor have to prove the documents pertaining to registration, insurance and driving licence. It also took the plea that the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle. The Tribunal framed relevant issues on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties and thereafter having considered material available before it, allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,68,105.95 against the Insurance Company. The Tribunal also directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of judgment, failing which, the Insurance Company shall have to pay interest @ 6% from the date of judgment till the final payment of compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants/claimants has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K .K. Shah, learned counsel for Insurance Company/respondent no. 2 and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the notional income of the deceased. He has submitted that the notional income for the purpose of compensation to the non-earning member has been fixed as long back as in the year 1994 and now there has been a considerable increase in the price index, therefore, the notional income should be enhanced and the compensation be awarded on the enhanced income. I have gone though the impugned award and have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants. It is true that the notional income for the non-earning member was fixed in IInd schedule inserted to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act by Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The accident has taken place in the year 2004. After a lapse of more than 10 years certainly there has been considerable price hike and the notional income taken by the Tribunal should be enhanced. The Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Shobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company and another, decided on 1.11.2006, has enhanced the notional income from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 36,000/- due to hike in the price index. According to the claim petition, the deceased was labourer being 40 years of age. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/-, as the claimants could not establish the monthly income of the deceased. As stated above, looking to the price hike and applying the ratio of the above cited case of the Division Bench of this Court, the notional income in the case of the deceased should be enhanced to Rs. 36,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Versus S. Rajpriya & others, reported in 2005 (4) SC 87, has ruled that in case, if the age of deceased is 38 years, then the multiplier should be 12. In the present case, the age of deceased was 40 years. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, a multiplier of 10 would be suitable, therefore, the total dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000 x 10 = 2,40,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 11,105.95 towards medical expenses, which, in my opinion, the claimants are entitled to get. In this way, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,58,105.95. In view of above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2,58,105.95 (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand One Hundred Five and Paise Ninety five), instead of Rs. 1,68,105.95 as awarded by the Tribunal, along with the interest of 6% per annum from the date of judgment till the final payment of compensation, against the United India Insurance Company Ltd. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP