IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 215 of 2008 Smt. Kanchan Devi & others … Appellants Vs Raj Kumar Sharma & another … Respondents Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants 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 31.01.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Case No. 160 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,27,000/- in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.05.2006, Rajpal Singh was going on Bullock-cart from his village to Jatpura Arat (market) along with Gajram and Bal Kishan & others in order to sell the wheat. Prior from their destination, the tyre of the bullock-cart got punctured and at the time of repairing the tyre at about 07:30 p.m., Metiz Car No. UP78X/6345, which was coming from the Thakurdwara side, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased and other persons. All the injured were admitted in the Government Hospital, Kashipur where during the course of their treatment, Ajaypal Singh and Rajpal Singh have died. According to the claim petition, at the time of the accident, 2 the deceased – Rajpal was 34 years of age and used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month by selling milk. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal concerned to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- for compensation. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition and filed their separate written statements before the Tribunal concerned. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. Both the parties led the evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record decreed the claim petition to a sum of Rs. 3,27,000/-vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2008. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants/appellants preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement the amount of compensation. 5. Heard Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation did not consider the actual income of the deceased. According, to the claim petition, the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from the business of milk at the time of the accident whereas the Tribunal taken into consideration only Rs. 30,000 annual 3 income of the deceased in order to calculate the amount of compensation, which appears to be not justified. 7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the entire judgment placed before me, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality. From my point of view the Tribunal has rightly taken into account the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/- because, the claimants did not produce any documentary evidence, which may show the actual income of the deceased. In order to calculate the amount of compensation the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses on the annual income of the deceased and rightly adopted the multiplier of ‘16’. In this way, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- (20,000 X 16) for compensation and further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and further Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and in total awarded a sum of Rs. 3,27,000/- as compensation. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 04.06.2008 ASWAL