IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 453 of 2007 Uttarakhand Transport Corporation …Appellant Versus Smt. Rekha Tripathi & others ... Respondents And Appeal From Order No. 488 of 2007 Smt. Rekha Tripathi & another …Appellants Versus Regional Manager & others ... Respondents Sri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate for claimants. Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sri P.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent no. 3 Sri M.K. Goyal, on behalf of Sri R.B. Agarwal, Advocate for The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (respondent no. 6) Sri N.S. Pundir, Advocate for U.K. Transport Corporation Sri A.M. Saklani, Advocate for respondent no. 5(Teekam Singh) Sri B.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondent no. 6 (A.O. No.453/2007) Dated: September 26, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Since both the appeals arise out of same judgment and award and similar question of fact of law is involved in both the appeals, hence, they are being deiced together. Both these appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have been preferred against the same judgment and award dated 15.06.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 130 of 2006, Smt. Rekha Tripathi & 2 another versus Regional Manager, Uttaranchal Transport Corporation & others. Brief facts of the case as narrated in claim petition are that on 30.11.2005 deceased-Rajeev Tripathi was going to Kashipur from Haldwani on Maruti Car No. U.A.-04-8083. When the said vehicle reached at Kaladhungi-Bazpur Road, a bus bearing Registration No. U.A.07K-6003 of Uttaranchal Transport Corporation being driven by its rashly and negligently, hit the Maruti Car from the rear side, due to which Maruti Car collided with Bus No. U.P.03-2055 coming from opposite direction. Due to the accident, Maruti Car came in the middle of both the Buses. In the accident, Rajeev Tripathi sustained grievous injuries on his person and he was taken to Hospital where doctors declared him dead. The deceased was working as Computer Engineer. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation against opposite parties. The opposite parties in the claim petition contested the claim before the Tribunal and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.5,96,000/- in favour of claimants, against opposite party no. 1- 3 Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation, vide judgment and award dated 15.06.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 15.06.2007, the appellant-Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation has preferred the present appeal before this Court. The claimants have also filed appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation before this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed all the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has come to the conclusion that on 30.11.2005 deceased-Rajeev Tripathi was going on Maruti Car No. U.A.04A-8033 and at Kaladhungi-Bazpur Road, Bus No. UA- 07K/6003 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the car from the rear side, due to which Bus No. UP-03-2055 coming from opposite direction dashed with Maruti Car and deceased- Rajeev Tripathi sustained injuries and died on account of injuries. The accident was caused due to rash and negligence of driver of Bus No. UA-07K- 6003 and there is no fault of drivers of Maruti Car as well as private Bus in the accident. Therefore, the factum of accident is established. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 4 The Tribunal has further held that vehicle in question was being plied in accordance with conditions of insurance policy and the vehicle was having all valid papers. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and the same deserves to be confirmed. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the record reveals that deceased was working as Computer Engineer in a Private Firm i.e. C.S.P.L. Computer Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow. The Director of the Company Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwari has been produced as PW-2 before the Tribunal, who has stated that deceased had been getting a consolidated salary of Rs.9500/- per month, apart from Rs.500/- as conveyance allowance and Rs.500/- as mobile allowance. He has also stated that deceased had been working as Branch Manager in the Company for some time. In the cross- examination, this witness (PW-2) has stated that deceased had been getting a consolidated salary of Rs.9500/-. He could not state before the court below during cross-examination that what is break- up in the salary which the deceased had been getting at the time of accident. The paper showing the salary of deceased is available on record as paper no.46C/11, but this document does not indicate that what is the break-up in the salary of the deceased. The trial court on the basis of guess work has come to the conclusion that for assessing the compensation in this case the salary as Rs.4000/- should be taken into consideration on the basis of guess work. The Tribunal has thus calculated the amount of compensation on the basis 5 of salary being drawn by the deceased at the time of accident. I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal in this regard. To my mind also, the financial dependency of claimants after deducting one-third on account of personal expenses of deceased, comes to Rs.32,000/- per annum. The age of deceased at the time of accident was 30 years. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘18’ in this case which is admittedly on higher side in view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the cases of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Versus S. Rajpriya & others, reported in 2005 (4) SC 87, The Managing Director, TNSTC versus Sripriya & others, reported in 2007(5) Supreme 301, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana (Smt) and others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 94 and Laxmi Devi & others vs. Mohammad Tabbar & another, reported in 2008 UAD 587. The proper multiplier in this case keeping in view the age of deceased comes to ‘15’. Therefore, after adopting the multiplier of ‘15’ the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants comes to Rs.32,000 x 15=Rs.4,80,000/-. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the claimants under different heads, which does not require to be disturbed. On the basis of aforesaid calculation, the total amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants comes to Rs.4,80,000 + Rs.20,000=Rs.5,00,000/-. The interest indicated in 6 the impugned judgment and award shall remain intact. With the aforesaid observations, A.O. No. 453 of 2007 is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 15.06.2007 is modified to the extent that claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) as compensation, instead of Rs.5,96,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. A.O. No. 488 of 2007 preferred by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, stands dismissed in view of the observations made by me in the body of the judgment. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant-Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 488 of 2007. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP