IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 404 of 2006 Smt. Prabha Devi and 4 others … Appellants. Vs. Radha Krishna Bhatt ..Respondent. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the appellants. None appeared for the respondent. Dated: 30-4-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 29-5-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli, in MACT Case No. 12/2005. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that on 15-9-2004, Bhawani Dutt was carrying 8 potato bags from Village Ghaat to Nandprayag in Truck No. U.P. 02-B-8817. When the said truck reached near Saitoli, at about 10 A.M., it met with accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. The deceased sustained grievous injuries in the accident and died in the Hospital at Gopeshwar. According to the claimants the deceased at the time of accident was 32 years of age and he was posted Assistant Teacher in Janta High School Bansbada. His monthly salary was Rs. 5,000/-. Besides this, he used to do agricultural and business work. 3- The Opposite Party Radha Krishna Bhatt, owner of the offending Truck filed his written statement before the Tribunal and admitted that the deceased was transporting potato in the Truck and has died in the accident. The driver was driving the Truck at 2 a slow speed with care and caution. He also alleged that the accident has occurred due to fall of wall of the road. The tribunal framed issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,69,500/- as compensation, along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 4- Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the compensation. 5- Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the deceased was an Assistant Teacher in a Public School and his monthly income was Rs. 5,000/-. Learned counsel for appellants also contended that besides monthly salary, the deceased also used to do the agricultural and business work, but the Tribunal has ignored the evidence in this regard and has wrongly assessed the dependency on notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month. He also contended that the rate of interest has been awarded on lesser side. 6- After having considered the material on record and perusing the impugned award, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, so far it relates to the quantum of compensation. It has come on record that the deceased was Assistant Teacher in a private School. Although a certificate of pay paper No. 33-C has been brought on record but the same could not be got proved by filing pay register before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that in private School situated in hill 3 villages, the teachers are not paid more than Rs. 2,000/- to 2,500/-. Further, the Teacher’s Training Certificate, viz. B.T.C., B.Ed. Etc. which the deceased has undertaken, has not been filed on record. As regards the agricultural work and selling of potato and Rajma by the deceased, the Tribunal has rejected this assertion on the ground that the deceased either could have done the teaching work or the sale work of potato and Rajma, because for that purpose he had to travel village to village and he would not have left time to do teaching work. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The deceased at the time of accident was 33 years of age and the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of ‘15’. Therefore, the total dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/- X 15 = Rs. 3,60,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate. Hence the total compensation comes to Rs. 3,60,000/- +Rs. 5,000/-+Rs. 2,000/-+ Rs. 2,500/- = Rs. 3,69,500/-. I do not find any infirmity in the quantum of compensation as has been awarded by the tribunal. 7- So far as the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is concerned, in my opinion the same certainly require interference. In the interest of justice the rate of interest should be enhanced from 5% to 7.5%. 8- For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 4 9- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 29-5-2006 is modified upto the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to get the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,69,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, instead of interest @ 5% per annum, as has been awarded by the Tribunal. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB