IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 4 of 2006 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Smt. Sheetal Parmar & others …Respondents Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for appellant Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate for respondent no. 4 Dated: December 15, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 11.11.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/F.T.C. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 82 of 2005, Smt. Sheetal Parmar and others versus Smt. Paramjeet Kaur and another. Briefly stated the facts, according to the claimants, are that on 28.10.2004 deceased-Shakti Singh Parmar was going through his Motorcycle No. U.A.06B/3832 for leaving Mistri of his workshop to his home Dheemarkheda. When they reached in front of Marya School at Kashipur-Dadiyal road, Tractor No. U.A.06A/4658 coming from opposite direction dashed upon the motorcycle of deceased- Shakti Singh. The said tractor was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. In the said accident, deceased-Shakti Singh sustained serious 2 injuries on his person and was admitted in Sirohi Bone Hospital, Kashipur and thereafter he was referred to Government Hospital, Kashipur, but he died in front of Jindal Solvent Factory on the way to the Hospital. The claimants alleged that deceased was 33 years of age at the time of his death and his annual income was Rs.60,000/- for the assessment year 2003-04 and had he been alive his income would have been Rs.72,000/- for the assessment year 2004-05. Therefore, the claimants claimed compensation against opposite parties jointly and severally. Opposite party no. 1 i.e. owner of offending tractor in question filed her written statement denying the contents of claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that on the date of accident her tractor was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. It has also been pleaded that on the date of alleged accident i.e. on 28.10.2004 registration of tractor in question was valid and on that day the said tractor was being driven by her husband Soorat Singh son of Trilok Singh, who was having valid driving licence. Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation, if any, is of insurance company. Opposite party no. 2-insurance company filed its written statement. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that driver of tractor in question has not been made party, therefore, the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of driver as party. It has also been stated that accident had occurred due to own negligence of deceased himself and on this ground also the claim petition is liable to be 3 dismissed. It has further been stated that insurance company had not been given any information under Section 158(6) of M.V. Act by the claimants and therefore on this ground also the claim petition was not maintainable. It has further pleaded that at the time of accident driver of tractor was not valid and effective driving licence. It has also pleaded that claimants have concocted a false and fabricated story, therefore, they are not entitled to get any compensation. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition, which were discussed in a great detail. Parties led evidence in support of this case. 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.5,60,800/-, against opposite party no. 2-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., along with interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 11.11.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present appeal before this Court. Heard Mr. V.K. Kohli, senior Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for appellant-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Mr. Mohd. Azim, 4 learned counsel for respondent no. 4 (owner of tractor in question) and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the alleged tractor in question was not involved in the accident. I do not find any force in this argument. The Tribunal has dealt this point in detail. I also am of the view that finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard appears to be justified and is not to be disturbed. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal considered all the evidence available on record and thereafter came to the conclusion that on 28.10.2004 the said accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor No. U.A.06A/4658, in which deceased-Shakti Singh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. I also find myself in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and I do not find any reason to disturb the same. The Tribunal further held that driver of offending tractor in question was having valid driving licence on the date of accident. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal and same deserves to be confirmed. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the record shows that deceased was aged about 33 years on the date of accident. As far as income of deceased is concerned, the Tribunal keeping in view the income tax returns filed by the deceased for the 5 assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, has assessed the income of deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and after deducting one-third out of it financial dependency of claimants has been assessed at Rs.2700/- per month, which comes to Rs.32,400/- per annum. I do not find any reason to disturb this finding. However, multiplier of ‘17’ adopted by the Tribunal appears to be 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. Keeping in view the age of the deceased the multiplier in this case cannot travel more than ‘13’ in any case and if the multiplier of ‘13’ is adopted in this case, then the amount of compensation comes to Rs.32,400 x 13=Rs.4,21,200/-. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and other expenses. I think that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the aforesaid heads appears to be just and reasonable and needs no interference. For the reasons stated above, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,21,200 + Rs.10,000 =Rs.4,31,200/-. As far as interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal has 6 awarded the conditional interest to the claimants in this case. I do not find any justification for awarding the conditional interest. To my mind, the claimants are entitled an interest of 7.5% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing the petition till the actual payment (instead of conditional interest as awarded by the Tribunal). Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,31,200/- (Rupees Four Lacs Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred only) as compensation (instead of Rs.5,60,800/- as awarded by the Tribunal), along with interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 7