IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 2 of 2008 National Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Sukhdev Singh & others … Respondents With Appeal From Order No. 558 of 2007 Sukhdev Singh … Appellant Vs Khar Singh & others … Respondents With Appeal From Order No. 567 of 2007 Smt. Palvinder Kaur & others … Appellants Vs Kehar Singh & others … Respondents With Appeal From Order No. 593 of 2007 National Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Smt. Palvinder Kaur & others … Respondents Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company Sri Z.U. Siddique, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. All these appeals are being heard together and decided by the common judgment, as the claims in all the appeals relate to the same accident and the facts and questions involved are common. 2. Appeal No. 2 of 2008 under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 27.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, 2 Nainital, in M.A.C.P. No. 32 of 2007, Sukhdev Singh Vs Kehar Singh & others for setting aside the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the court below. On the other hand, the claimant – Sukhdev Singh by way of filing the appeal No. 558 of 2007 challenged the same award for enhancing the amount of compensation. 3. Appeal No. 567 of 2007 under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/claimants against the judgment and award dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 31 of 2004, Smt. Palvinder Kaur & others Vs Kehar Singh & others for enhancing the amount of compensation. On the other hand, the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. challenged the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Court below by filing appeal No. 593 of 2007. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.12.2006 at about 06:15 p.m, Sukhdev Singh was going along with his friend Surjeet Singh by a cycle. When they reached near Cold Storage, Balaji Industries, Bijti Road, P.S. Sitrganj District Udham Singh Nagar, suddenly, a car (Bulero) bearing registration No. UA06G/4916, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the said cycle on the wrong side resulting serious injuries on both the cyclists. With the help of the villagers, both of them were admitted in the Government Hospital, Sitarganj and thereafter the doctors considering the injuries serious in nature, referred them to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani, but Surjeet Singh died on the way to hospital, whereas Sukhdev Singh sustained multiple injuries. According to the claimant/injured he has spent Rs. 50,000/- on his medical treatment and he has 3 become permanently disabled. According to the applicant – Sukhdev Singh, he was 32 years of age at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs. 4,500/- per month doing work as a labourer. Therefore, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- as compensation. On the other hand, the legal heirs of the deceased – Surjeet Singh also filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 10,59,000/- as compensation. According to the claimants, the deceased was 26 years of age and he used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month, as a driver. The deceased was the only bread earner to the family members/claimants, hence, they have filed claim petition before the Tribunal. 5. The notices were issued to the opposite parties. Sri Kehar Singh – owner of the vehicle in question contested the claim petition alleging therein that on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle was having valid driving licence and the vehicle in question was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the insurer of the vehicle. 6. Sri Nirmal Singh – driver of vehicle No. UA06G/4916 also contested the claim petition. He has alleged in the written statement that the accident took place due to rash and negligent of the cyclist. On the date of accident he was having all the valid documents pertaining to the vehicle in question. He has also alleged that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability of compensation, if any, lies upon the insurer of the vehicle. 7. The National Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing written statement before 4 the Tribunal denying most of the allegations made in the claim petition. The accident took place due to negligence of the cyclist, therefore, the insurer of the vehicle No. UA06G/4916/applicant was not liable to pay any compensation. It has also pleaded that the amount of compensation is very high; therefore, the claim petition was liable to be rejected. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim of the deceased – Surjeet Singh for a sum of Rs. 4,18,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 29.10.2007. The Tribunal in the claim petition of injured – Sukhdev Singh awarded a sum of Rs. 22,000/- along with conditional interest of 6% per annum vide judgment and award dated 27.10.2007. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and awards, both the parties i.e. claimants as well as National Insurance Company Ltd. have filed the cross appeals against the aforesaid judgments and awards. 10. Heard Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, Sri Z.U. Siddique, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents and perused the record. 5 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the vehicle in question has pressed this appeal only on the point of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3 has held that since the branch of the Insurance Company is situated at Haldwani, hence, the court below had jurisdiction to decide the matter. In order to support his version, he has invited my attention towards Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the court below considering evidence available on record has rightly decided issue No. 3. It is clear from the perusal of the claim petition wherein, the claimant mentioned his present address, which comes in the District Nainital. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly decided issue relating to the jurisdiction of the case. In order to support his version, he has placed before a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mantoo Sarkar Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 244. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment and award as well as going through the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the vehicle in question. The Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record as well as considering the provision of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, has rightly held that the Tribunal, Nainital had a jurisdiction to hear the case and accordingly decided the issue in favour of the claimants. 6 14. Learned counsel for the claimant(s) has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded the amount of compensation on the lower side. He has further submitted that the claimant – Sukhdev was 32 years of age and was doing the labourer work and earning a sum of Rs. 4,500/- per month and in future he would have got around Rs. 6,000/- per month. Likewise the deceased would have definitely earned more and spent much towards the livelihood of his family, but the Tribunal did not consider all the aspects and awarded a meager amount of compensation in favour of the claimant. 15. As far as the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant/claimant is concerned, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by him. According to the claim petition, the claimant/injured had spent Rs. 50,000/- on his medical treatment but he could not produce any documentary evidence in support of his case, which might show that he had actually spent Rs. 50,000/- on his medical treatment. The Tribunal on the basis of the medical receipt produced by the claimant before it, awarded the amount of Rs. 12,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal further considering the mental and physical pain of the claimant awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under this head. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award. The amount of Rs. 22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. 16. As far as the amount awarded by the Tribunal in the case of the deceased – Surjeet Singh is concerned, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. In this way, the annual income of the 7 deceased comes to Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000/-. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly taken into account the notional income of the deceased Rs. 3,000/- per month, as the claimants did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the monthly income of the deceased. The court below considering the age of the deceased as 25 has adopted the multiplier of ‘17’ as is mentioned in the schedule of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000/- (Rupees Four lacs and eight thousand only) in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under different heads, which also appears perfectly justified. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,18,000/-. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal in both the appeals are just and reasonable and do not require interference by this Court. The appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 18. The statutory amount deposited by the appellants in A.O. Nos. 593 of 2007 and 2 of 2008 be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 19. Let the copy of this order be placed in A.O. Nos. 558/2007, 267/2007 and 593/2007. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 22.05.2009 ASWAL