IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 543 of 2007 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Smt. Poonam & others … Respondents With A.O. No. 579 of 2007 Smt. Poonam & others … Appellants Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & others … Respondents Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent/National Insurance Company Ltd. Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the respondent Nos 1 to 5 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 have been preferred by the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company as well as claimants/appellants against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 302 of 2006, Smt. Poonam & others Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & others. As these appeals arise out against the same accident and facts are similar, therefore, both these are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.08.2006, the deceased – Nitin Raj was coming on his motorcycle No. UA06E/7301 from Jaspur to Village Asalatpur. At about 08:30 p.m., when he reached near Surajan Nagar road, Village Mahuadabra, then a truck bearing registration No. 2 UP02D/1843, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased, in which he sustained serious injuries. He was immediately admitted in the Government Hospital, Jaspur and thereafter he was admitted in the Sai Hospital. The doctors considering the serious injuries of the deceased referred him to higher center. Thereafter he was admitted in the Safdarganj Hospital, Delhi where he was dead on 28.08.2006 during the course of his treatment. According to the claimants, the deceased was 29 years of age and used to earn Rs. 8,640/- per month as salary. Hence, the claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 15.00 lacs as compensation. 3. Thereafter notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of the notices, the opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 9,79,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment vide judgment and award dated 22.09.2007. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants/claimants preferred appeal No. 579 of 2007 for enhancing and appeal No. 543 of 2007 has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for setting aside the impugned judgment and award. 3 5. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent/National Insurance Company Ltd., Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the respondent Nos 1 to 5 and perused the record. 6. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck No. UP02D/1843 is concerned, that appears to be completely justified and I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 7. As the appeals have been preferred by the insurer of truck No. UP02D/1843/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as well as claimants/appellants for enhancement of the amount of compensation, therefore, the only point to be discussed in this appeal is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be held to be justified or not. 8. As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3 discussed this aspect. The approach adopted by the Tribunal does not appear to be justified. The deceased was aged about 29 years as per the claim petition. The age of the deceased shows in the postmortem report as 27 years. The Tribunal has also assessed the age of the deceased as 27 years at the time of the accident and adopted the multiplier of ‘15’ in calculating the amount of compensation. As far as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal of ‘15’ is concerned, I do not find any ground for interference in this regard. The just and proper multiplier, keeping in view the age of the deceased had been dopted, I 4 also share the same view of the Tribunal that in this case the multiplier should have been ‘15’. 9. But the calculation made by the Tribunal in taking the salary of the deceased and thus assessing the amount of compensation appears to be wrong. The deceased was working as an accountant in the Kishan Sehkari Samiti and was drawing a sum of Rs. 8,640/- as gross salary. The salary certificate has been filed by the claimants before the Tribunal as paper No. 7C/4. The home takes salary; as per the pay slip appears to be Rs. 7,644/-. The Tribunal in order to calculate the amount of compensation has taken into account the salary of the deceased as Rs. 8,100 per month, which appears to be wrong. I am of the view that the Tribunal should have taken into account the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 7,642/-. Had the deceased been alive, he would have spent 1/3rd amount on his own expenses and therefore, after deducting 1/3rd amount out of the monthly salary of the deceased, the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 5,095/- (7642 X 2/3). In this way, annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 61,140/- (5095 X 12). After adopting the multiplier of ‘15’ the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 9,17,100/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses as well as Rs. 5,000/- under the loss of estate and the same does not require any interference. 10. For the reasons stated above, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 9,24,100/- along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 11. With the above observations, the appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Oriental 5 Insurance Company Ltd. is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 9,24,100/- instead of Rs. 9,79,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. 12. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of filing the appeal before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 13. Let the copy of this order be place in A.O. No. 579 of 2007. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.06.2009 ASWAL