IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 575/2006 Smt. Raguna Devi and 2 others … Appellants. Versus U.P. S.R.T.C. and 4 others .. Respondents. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate for respondent No.1. None has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Dated: 12-6-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 9-6-2004, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, U.S. Nagar, in MACT Case No. 152 of 2003. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 14.11.2003 Ugrasen was coming to his village from Chakapur in bicycle. Roadways Bus bearing registration No. U.P. 02/A-8302 came there at a high speed and dashed him due to which he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The claimants filed claim petition for compensation for the death of Ugrasen. 3- The Opposite Party/U.P.S.R.T.C. filed written statement and alleged that the accident has occurred for the reason that the driver of the bus has tried to save the calf of the cow, which had come in front of the bus. The driver has no fault. Exaggerated compensation has been claimed. 4- The Opposite Parties 2 to 5, who are the sons of deceased, have not raised any objection. 2 5- The learned Tribunal framed issues in the petition. Thereafter claimants adduced evidence. The Tribunal after consideration the material on record awarded a sum of Rs. 62,000/- as compensation along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the final date of payment. 6- Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation. According to him the notional income assessed by the Tribunal is on lesser side and it should have been at the enhanced rate in view of latest verdict of Division Bench of this Court. 9- From perusal of record it reveals that the deceased was 60 years of age. According to the claimants the deceased used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month from farming, but no certificate or reliable proof has been filed pertaining to his income. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly taken the notional income for purpose of calculation of the compensation. However, so far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/-. The Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Sobhan Singh and another Vs. New India Insurance Company and another, decided on 1.11.2006, has assessed the notional income at Rs. 36,000/- due to price hike. Thus, the annual dependency of the claimants after deduction of 1/3rd towards personal 3 expenses, comes to Rs. 24,000/-. Therefore, the annual dependency of the claimants has been taken on meager side by the Tribunal. This dependency should be Rs. 24,000/- per annum instead of Rs.10,000/-, as has been held by the Tribunal. The tribunal has adopted multiplier of ‘5’ keeping in view the age of the deceased as 60 years and the multiplier appears to be justified. I do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of the Tribunal in adopting the multiplier of ‘5’. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads shall remain intact. Thus, on the basis of the calculation made by this Court the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 24,000/- X 5= Rs. 1,20,000/- + Rs. 9,500/- (towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium) + Rs. 2,500/- (cost of petition) = Rs. 1,32,000/-, instead of Rs. 62,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of the award shall be paid along with interest @ 7.5.% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment instead of the interest @ 9% per annum indicated in the impugned award. 10- For the reasons recorded above the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 11- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are awarded a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, instead of Rs. 62,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 9% per annum. The impugned judgment and award dated 9-6-2004 stands modified accordingly. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 4