IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 223 of 2011 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant. Versus Smt. Tasgeera W/O Shri Estekar Alam and others. … Respondents. Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Mr. D.C.S.Rawat, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. Date August 09, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Money Withdrawal Application No. 7992 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the award dated 1- 4-2011 passed by the District Judge/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Udham Singh Nagar (for short the Tribunal) in Motor Acident Claim Petition No. 34 of 2009 Smt. Tasgera Vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Ltd. and another, whereby a compensation of Rs. 3,64,000/- has been awarded to the claimant- respondent no.1 along with interest @ 7% per annum against the Oriental Insurance Company, as mentioned in the impugned award. Relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief are that on 4-1-2009, son of the claimant, Jainul alias Sonu was going on foot from his house to new Anaj Mandi. At about 10 a.m., when he reached ahead of Dhela bridge, a roadyways bus No. U.A. 07S/9647 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the pedestrian from the backside, with the result said Jainul suffered grievous injuries. The injured was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. The driver of the offending bus ran away after alighting from the bus on spot. A number of persons witnessed the said accident. The dead body was put to post mortem 2 examination on 4-1-2009 at Government Hospital Kashipur and report of the accident was lodged on 4-1-2009 with the police station Kunda, district Udham Singh Nagar and a case under Section 279 and 304-A of the I.P.C. was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was doing labour work and he used to earn Rs. 3300/- per month. The offending bus was duly registered with the opposite party no. 2-appellant. The owner of the vehicle- Uttarakhand Transport Corporation contested the claim petition by filing its written statement and asserted that the bus in question was going from Ramnagar to Delhi on the fateful day. As soon as the bus reached near the gate of Mandi Samiti, 4-5 children suddenly appeared on the motor road and due to dense fog, the children could not see the bus. The driver of the bus tried his best to save the children, who started running in a haphazard manner, but one of them dashed from the rear body of the bus due to his own fault. The driver was driving the bus cautiously with due care and was not at fault. The bus was duly insured with the appellant-insurance company. The claim petition under Section 163A of the Act deserves to be dismissed. The appellant-Insurance Company also contested the claim petition and filed its written statement. It was asserted that the compensation is payable by the insurer if there is no breach of policy conditions; that no information was given to the insurance company of the alleged accident. The driver of the offending bus also filed his written statement and contested the claim petition. It was asserted that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident, but claimed that no accident took place with the son of the claimant involving the bus in question. 3 The learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues in the case, recorded the evidence of the parties, heard them and after perusing the evidence came to the conclusion on Issue No.1 that the deceased Jainul Abedeen alias Sonu lost his life in the motor vehicle accident involving bus no. UA07S-9647 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. On Issue no. 2, the learned Tribunal has held that the Insurance Company could not establish that the owner was not having valid papers of insurance etc. on the date of accident. Consequently, the Issue No. 2 was decided against the insurer-appellant. On Issue No.3, it was held that the driver of the bus in question was having a valid driving licence on the date of accident. On Issue No. 4, the learned Tribunal has held that the deceased was aged about 12 years. The dependency was reckoned to be Rs. 24000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 to workout the compensation for the death of the deceased. Thus the compensation was worked out to be 24,000 x 15= Rs. 3,60,000/- and in addition, an amount of Rs. 4,000/- was awarded towards funeral charges. Ultimately, the learned Tribunal by the impugned award has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,64,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum as mentioned earlier, which gave rise to the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has not deducted the amount of personal expenses of the deceased to the tune of 50%, as the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the age of the mother of the deceased was relevant for ascertaining the multiplier and the multiplier of 15 as applied by the tribunal is erroneous. Thus, only the calculation part of the impugned award appears to be under challenge by the Insurance Company-appellant. Having gone through the impugned award, it is obvious that the deceased was of the age group of 10 to 15 years and he was bachelor at the time of his accidental death. The 4 claimant has claimed that the deceased was a labour and was earning Rs. 3300/- per month. The age of the mother of the deceased, who is claimant in the claim petition, has been mentioned as 42 years. Before the learned Tribunal, the claimant has not led any evidence to substantiate that the deceased was having any income at the time of his death. In such a case, the notional income of Rs. 36,000/- per annum would be taken into account, as has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Mayawati and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another [2006(2) U.D., 657]. Since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of his accidental death, a deduction of 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased would be made from the notional income of Rs. 36,000/- per annum, in view of the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 121], in paragraph no. 31 of the judgment. Thus, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 18,000/- per annum instead of Rs. 24,000/- as determined by the learned Tribunal. So far as the multiplier to be applied is concerned, in view of the case law of Sarla Verma (supra), the age of the mother of the deceased would be relevant. The claimant has mentioned her age to be 42 years, therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the case would be 14 for the age group of 41 to 45 years. As such, the total compensation for the loss of death of deceased Jainul alias Sonu would come to Rs. 18,000/- x 14 = Rs. 2,52,000/-. The claimant would also be entitled to funeral expenses of Rs. 4,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total comepensation of Rs. 2,56,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty-six thousand) instead of Rs. 3,64,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 5 For the reasons and discussion above, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and the impugned award is liable to be modified to the above extent. The appeal is partly allowed. The claimant-respondent no.1 is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,56,000/- instead of Rs. 3,64,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. To this extent, the impugned award dated 1-4-2011 stands modified. The award of interest as determined by the learned Tribunal @ 7% per annum shall remain undisturbed. Statutory deposit, i.e. Rs. 25,000/-, made by the appellant at the time of filing appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP