IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 360 of 2004 Smt. Santosh Kumari & others … Appellants Vs Smt. Mamta Sharma & another … Respondents Sri B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the appellants Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment dated 25.06.2004 and decree dated 02.07.2004 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 101 of 2002, Smt. Santosh Kumari & others Vs Smt. Mamta Sharma & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.2002, Sri Todal Singh (deceased) was going to Kalagarh in Tata Spacio No. UA08/2212 which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, due to which the said vehicle collided with the tree in which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died during the course of treatment. According to the claim petition, the deceased was working as a L.T. Grade teacher in State Inter College, Gajrola and used to earn Rs. 9,704/- per month. The claimants are the dependent upon the deceased, therefore, filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 15,39,480/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party No. 1 – Smt. Mamta Sharma – owner of the vehicle in question contested the claim petition by filing written statement. It has also pleaded that on the date of 2 accident, there was a rainy season and suddenly, the tyre of the vehicle ruptured and the driver of the vehicle lost control over the same and it collided with the tree. It has also pleaded that on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and the claimants have not made the insurer of the vehicle question as a party, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the opposite party No. 1, the claimants have moved the substitution application and arrayed the Unite Insurance Company Ltd. as opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, notices were issued to the opposite party No. 2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal concerned. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. In support of their cases, both the parties led evidence before the Tribunal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 8,61,752/- in favour of the claimants vide judgment and award dated 25.06.2004. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancing the amount of compensation. 7. Heard Sri B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 3 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed this appeal on the sole ground that the Tribunal while awarding the amount of compensation did not consider the future prospect of the deceased. He has further contended that the Tribunal did not consider the exact monthly income of the deceased on the date of accident and assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 9,704/- which appears to be on the lower side. 9. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants only on the ground of quantum. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the same is not under dispute. The Tribunal has considered each and every point in great detail and held that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle in question. It is also not disputed that the driver of the offending vehicle was having the valid and effective driving licence. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. also not disputed this fact that the vehicle in question was insured with it. Therefore, the only question which is to be discussed before me relating to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. As far as the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants relating to the future expectancies of the deceased is concerned, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in various decisions that due to uncertainties abound, the future prospects cannot be considered. According to the claim petition, the claimants have claimed Rs. 15,40,000/-, as compensation in lieu of the death of Sri Todal Singh. In the claim petition, the claimants have mentioned the monthly 4 salary of the deceased as Rs. 9,704/-, therefore, the Tribunal on the basis of the statement of Sri Randhir Kumari as well as material available on record, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of Rs. 9,704/- in order to calculate the income of the deceased. In this way, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,16,448/- (9704 X 12) and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 77,632/-. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased 50 years, adopted the multiplier of ‘11’ as mentioned in the second schedule appended to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which appears to be quite justified. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 8,53,952/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss consortium. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 8,61,752/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 11.09.2008 ASWAL