IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 468 of 2006 National Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Charan Jeet Singh & others …Respondents Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for appellant Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondents no. 1 & 2 Dated: November 25, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd., who is insurer of offending vehicle in question, against the judgment and award dated 19.5.2006 and decree passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/VI Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 82 of 2004, Sri Charanjeet Singh and another versus Chandrabhushan Singh Negi and another. The claimants-Charanjeet Singh and another filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of death of their son-Prabhujot Singh (deceased) in a motor vehicle accident alleging therein that on 29.2.2004 at 3.00 a.m. in the night, Sahil Virmani, Varun Jain, Pankaj Kohli, Prabhujot Singh and Ashish Negi were coming from Sai Mandir through Vehicle No.U.A.07- 8171. The said vehicle was being driven by Ashish Negi. When at 3.00 a.m. in the night the said vehicle 2 reached at Rajpur Road near Kishanpur, mobile of Ashish Negi rang and while talking on mobile phone Ashish Negi lost control over the vehicle and said vehicle collided with a tree and thereafter collided with an electric poll. At the time of accident the speed of said vehicle was so fast that Pankaj Kohli, Prabhujot Singh and Ashish Negi died at the spot, while Varun Jain and Sahil Virmani sustained serious injuries on their person. The said vehicle was being driven by Ashish Negi with rash and negligence and on account of the same the said accident occurred. At the time of accident deceased- Prabhujot Singh was 22 years of age. Prior to June, 2003 deceased-Prabhujot Singh had been working in a factory at Gurgaon and had been getting a sum of Rs.17293=18. Both the claimants, who are parents of deceased-Prabhujot Singh, are dumb and deaf. The deceased after leaving service from Gurgaon to look after his parents, shifted to Dehradun and at the time of his death he had been working at Dewas Enterprises Company, Dehradun and had been getting Rs.9000/- per month from the said job. In addition to this, deceased had been doing the work of metal engraving and running a Dhaba behind Gurudwara at Racecourse and had been earning a sum of Rs.5500/- per month from the said business. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation against opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1 filed his written statement admitting therein the factum of accident and pleaded that compensation has been claimed exorbitantly. He has denied this fact that the said vehicle was being driven by Ashish Negi rashly and 3 negligently. He has pleaded that Ashish Negi was driving the said vehicle carefully, but due to sudden technical fault in the vehicle, the vehicle lost its control and it met with an accident after colliding with a big tree, in which Ashish Negi, son of opposite party no. 1, has also died. It has also been pleaded that on the date of accident driver was having valid driving licence and the said vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd. Therefore, liability to pay the compensation, if any, is of opposite party no. 2- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd./appellant before this Court, filed its written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. It has also been pleaded that claimants have mentioned the excessive income of deceased in order to get huge amount of compensation. It has also been pleaded that accident did not occur due to rash and negligence of driver, rather it took place on account of technical fault in the vehicle and it was an inevitable accident. It has further been pleaded that since the said accident did not take place on account of rash and negligence, rather it occurred due to technical fault in the vehicle, therefore, claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition, which were discussed in detail. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing 4 learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.8,22,000/-, against opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd., along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 19.05.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present appeal before this Court. Heard Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for appellant-insurance company, Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for claimants- respondents no. 1 & 2 and perused the record. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the evidence available on record clearly reveals that vehicle in question was being driven by Ashish Negi rashly and negligently at the time of accident and on account of his rash and negligence this accident took place, in which Probhujot Singh sustained injuries and he subsequently died. As far as insurance of offending vehicle in question is concerned, it is also evident from the evidence available on record that offending vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident. It is also clear that the driver of offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issues do not require any interference. 5 As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, it is clear from the evidence on record that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident. Admittedly, deceased was unmarried. The evidence further reveals that deceased had been working in a private firm at Gurgaon, but on account of ailment of his parents he had to shift to Dehradun where he was working in a private company and getting a sum of Rs.9000/- per month as salary. It has been pleaded by the claimants that deceased-Prabhujot Singh had also engaged in other works like work of engraving as well as work of running Dhaba, but no evidence has been adduced by the claimants in order to show that deceased had been doing work of engraving as well as running Dhaba. The Tribunal has thus reached to the conclusion that amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants should be assessed on the basis of salary which the deceased had been receiving at the time of accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that salary of deceased-Prabhujot Singh has also not been taken into account by the Tribunal in a proper manner. He has also submitted that excessive amount has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. He has invited my attention towards salary slip issued by the company and he has submitted that on the basis of this salary slip the amount has been awarded on higher side. However, having considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that 50% of the salary should be 6 deducted from the salary of the deceased in order to reach to this conclusion that financial dependency of claimants should be 50% of the salary being received by the deceased at the time of accident. The deceased was obviously an unmarried person and in case, if he would have been married after a year or two, then financial dependency of claimants certainly would have been reduced. The approach adopted by the Tribunal for deducting one-third out of total salary being received by the deceased, appears to be wrong. In case, if financial dependency of claimants, on the basis of aforesaid formula, is taken into consideration as Rs.4500/- per month, then the annual financial dependency of claimants comes to Rs.4500 X 12=Rs.54000/- per annum. The age of parents of deceased is 48 years and 46 years respectively, therefore, keeping in view the age of parents of deceased, multiplier of ‘10’ would be just and proper in this case and in case, if the multiplier of ‘10’, as has been indicated above, is taken into consideration, then total amount of compensation comes to Rs.54000 x 10=Rs.5,40,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards expenses of funeral and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, love and affection, which appears to be justified and needs no interference. On the basis of aforesaid findings, I come to the conclusion that total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is Rs.5,40,000 + Rs.5,000 + Rs.25,000=Rs.5,70,000/-. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the 7 extent that claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Seventy Thousand) as compensation, along with interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award, instead of Rs.8,22,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP