IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 79 of 2009 Dheeraj Singh ...Appellant Versus Pramod Kumar and others …Respondents Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for respondent no. 3 Dated: 15-07-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant with respect to admission of the appeal. Admit the appeal. Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate is present for respondent no. 3-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., therefore, heard learned counsel for the parties in order to decide the appeal finally. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 22.09.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in M.A.C.C. No. 73 of 2003, Dheeraj Singh versus Pramod Kumar and another whereby the claim petition was decreed for a sum of Rs.80,000/- against respondent no. 3-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The amount of compensation was directed to be paid within two months and in case of failure, it was directed that 9% interest shall be paid from the date 2 of filing the petition till the date of its payment. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.02.2003, father of the appellant/claimant Rajendra Singh was coming from Parsauli to Dhari Khal by a Bus bearing No. UP06-6253 and at 6.00 P.M., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus, the said bus fell into a ditch due to which Rajendra Singh died on the spot. It was stated that the said bus was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The deceased was 52 years of age at the time of accident and was doing agriculture work and it was alleged that he was earning Rs.8,000/-. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their written statements. The factum of accident was accepted by the owner of the vehicle and the rest of the allegations were denied. It was also stated that 38 passengers were travelling in the said bus at the time of accident and the amount claimed as compensation was exorbitant. The vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident. The insurance company in its written statement denied all the allegations made in the claim petition. It was stated that the deceased was not an authorized passenger. The offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the conditions of insurance policy and the vehicle was overloaded. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed necessary issues and on the basis of the evidence, decreed the claim petition for a compensation of Rs.80,000/- against Oriental 3 Insurance Company Limited-respondent no. 3 vide judgment and award dated 22.9.2005. The amount of compensation was directed to be paid within two months and in case of failure, it was directed that 9% interest shall be paid from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its payment. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation, before this Court. Heard Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 3/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and perused the record. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus is concerned, that appears to be completely justified and I am also in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. So far as amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal while deciding issue no. 6 has discussed this aspect, but the approach adopted by the Tribunal appears to be improper upto some extent. However, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the annual notional income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- and the same does not require any interference. Keeping in view the age of the deceased as 52 years, the multiplier of ‘5’ as adopted by the Tribunal is justified and after 4 adopting the multiplier of ‘5’ the amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,80,000/-. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd out of total annual income of deceased as personal expenses, which appears to be justified. The Tribunal has thus awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as amount of compensation. The Tribunal further fell in error in deducting the amount of 1/3rd against the personal expenses of the deceased twice which does not appear to be justified. I do not find anything on record which may show that amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant is exorbitant. Therefore, I am of the view that there was no necessity to deduct 1/3rd twice. An amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in lieu of death of Rajendra Singh cannot be said to be exorbitant in any manner. Therefore, there was no justification with the Tribunal to deduct the amount of 1/3rd as personal expenses of the deceased twice. I, therefore, set aside the finding recorded by the Tribunal by which the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount of compensation twice. Therefore, I am of the opinion that claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- in lieu of death of Rajendra Singh, father of the claimant (instead of Rs.80,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal). As far as amount of interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award is concerned, the Tribunal again fell in error in awarding the conditional interest of 9% per annum on the amount of compensation, which does not appear to be reasonable. However, I am of the view that this appeal was preferred by the claimant after a lapse of four years from the date of passing the impugned judgment and award, therefore, the 5 claimant/appellant shall get an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment excluding the period w.e.f. 22nd September, 2005 to 30th June, 2009. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 22.9.2005 is modified to the extent that claimant/appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty thousand only) as compensation, along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing petition till the date of actual payment excluding the period w.e.f. 22nd September, 2005 to 30th June, 2009 (instead of Rs.80,0000/- as compensation along with conditional interest of 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal). (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP