IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 32 of 2007 Matbar Singh Rana & another … Appellants Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & another … Respondents Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the appellants Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 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 29.09.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli, in M.A.C.P. No. 06 of 2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.07.2005 the deceased – Deepak Singh Rana was going from Tapowan to Suraitota in vehicle No. UA07C/9076. At about 03:00 p.m., when the said vehicle reached at Malari Road, Joshimath, due to rash and negligent driving of its driver – Mukesh Badwal, the vehicle in question met with an accident resulting the death of the deceased – Deepak Singh Rana. At the time of the death, the deceased was 22 years of age and used to earn Rs. 5,000/- by doing painting work in Boarder Road Organisation. Therefore, the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party No. 1 – Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. contested the claim petition by filing its written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It has pleaded that on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid licence, registration certificate, route 2 permit, fitness certificate etc., therefore, the applicant/Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Opposite party No. 2 – Jyotish Dimri, owner of the vehicle in question also contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal admitting the factum of accident. He has alleged that on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was having the valid driving licence. It has further alleged that on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party No. 1 – Oriental Insurance Company. It has further pleaded that the accident took place due to technical fault, therefore, he was not liable to pay any compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing leaned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 54,500/- as compensation in favour of the claimants, vide judgment and award dated 29.09.2006. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants/claimants preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancing the amount of compensation. 7. Heard Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 3 8. The findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver appears to be quite justified. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the evidence of Matwar Singh – P.W.1 who has stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question whereas Jyotish Dimri – owner of the vehicle has stated that the accident took place due to technical fault in the vehicle in question but he could not produce any evidence which may suggest that the accident took place by technical fault. Hence, the Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. UA07C/9076. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are perfectly justified and reasonable. The owner of the vehicle in question submitted all the documents pertaining to the vehicle in question as well as photocopy of the driving licence of the driver , therefore, Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle was having the valid driving licence and all the documents pertaining to the vehicle in question and decided issue No. 2 against the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. I am in total agreement with findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question. 9. As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants is concerned, the record reveals that the deceased was aged 42 years at the time of the accident. The deceased was unmarried person. Therefore, in order to calculate the amount of compensation, the age of the parents would be taken into consideration. In this case, the 4 age of the father of the deceased was 63 years at the time of the accident. The mother of the deceased was not alive at the time of the accident. 10. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘5’ which appears to be justified. The Tribunal at the same time has ignored this aspect that the accident has taken place on 24.07.2005, therefore, the notional income for a person who was not earning member at the time of the accident should have been taken as Rs. 30,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 20,000/- per annum. In case, if a multiplier of ‘5’ is adopted on this amount, then the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 11. The claimant is thus entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 54,500/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The other amount awarded by the Tribunal under different heads shall remain intact. The Tribunal has awarded the interest @ 5% per annum in this case which appears to be on lesser side. In fact, the amount of interest should be 6% per annum instead of 5%. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid calculation, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,04,500/- {100000 (compensation) + Rs. 2,000/- (towards financial expenses) + Rs. 2,500/- (towards loss of state)}. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,04,500/-. 13. In view of the above observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified up to the extent that the claimant is entitled to get a 5 sum of Rs. 1,04,500/- instead of Rs. 54,500/- along with interest @ 6% instead of 5% per annum as compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 03.11.2008 ASWAL