IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 309 of 2006 Smt. Khasti Devi … Appellant Versus Sri Deshraj & another … Respondents And Appeal From Order No. 586 of 2006 Desh Raj … Appellant Versus New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & another … Respondents Sri Z.U. Siddiquie, Advocate for appellant Sri Lalit Sharma, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Sri T.A. Khan, Advocate for respondent no.2-insurance company Dated: June 17, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Since both the appeals arise out of same judgment and award, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment and order. Both these appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 08.02.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./F.T.C. IInd, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 73 of 2004, Smt. Khasti Devi vs. Sri Deshraj and another. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the claim petition are that on 22.2.2004 the claimant-Khasti Devi along with her husband was coming for the purchase purpose on their Scooter No. U.P.02/C 8691. When they reached on the main Road a 2 tractor bearing Registration No. U.P. 22B-3949 along with trolley, was coming from Haldwani side and was going towards Kathghariya which was fully loaded came in a very rash speed. The driver lost control over the tractor and dashed with the scooter, as a consequence of which claimant sustained grievous injuries on her person. The claimant got fractured of her both legs, due to which she has not been able to walk. The claimant was treated at Soban Singh Jeena Hospital where she got operated four times and steel rods were fixed in her both legs, due to which the claimant has been suffering severe mental and physical agony and a huge amount has been expended over her treatment. The claimant has alleged that she had been earning Rs.6000/- per month by running sewing, knitting and cooking centre at home, but now she is unable to do any work due to injuries sustained in the accident. The claimant thus claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite party no. 1-Sri Deshraj, owner of vehicle contested the case by filing written statement and pleaded that F.I.R. has been lodged on wrong facts. He has pleaded that accident did not take place due to rash and negligence of his driver, rather it occurred due to own negligence of scooterist. He has also pleaded that tractor in question was registered in R.T.O. Office at Udham Singh Nagar in accordance with law and on the date of accident his tractor was insured with opposite party no. 2-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. He has further pleaded that his driver-Gulshan was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of 3 accident, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. The opposite party no. 2-insurance company contested the case by filing written statement. It has pleaded that tractor was not being used for agricultural purpose by attaching trolley with it and at the time of the accident the trolley was loaded with more goods than its actual capacity and therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It has also pleaded that Tractor No. U.P. 22B-3949 was being used for commercial purpose, for which the owner of tractor was not authorised. The trolley was loaded with 250 bags of Maize, for which also the owner of tractor was not authorized. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. 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.3,15,000/- against the opposite parties. The Tribunal further directed that insurance company shall have the recoverable rights to recover the amount of compensation from opposite party no. 1-owner of vehicle. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award the claimant has preferred the appeal before this Court for enhancement of award of compensation. 4 The owner of vehicle also filed A.O. No. 586 of 2006 before this Court. The insurance company also filed cross objection before this Court. Heard Sri Z.U. Siddiquie, learned counsel for claimant-Smt. Khasti Devi, Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for owner of vehicle-Sri Desh Raj, Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for insurance company and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the amount of award granted by the Tribunal is meager and liable to be enhanced by this Court. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. The record reveals that the claimant has stated that she had been earning Rs.6000/- per month by sewing, knitting and cooking, but there is no evidence on record in this regard. Admittedly, the claimant was 50 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of claimant at Rs.15000/- per annum under the provisions of M.V. Act. The Tribunal selected the multiplier of ‘11’ keeping in view the disability of claimant, which appears to be just and reasonable. After applying the multiplier of ‘11’ the total dependency of claimant has been worked out at Rs.15000 x 11=Rs.1,65,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- for future treatment, Rs.25,000/- for physical and mental agony, Rs.25,000/- for depreciation of life, Rs.25,000/- for nutritious diet, expenses of attendant and transportation charges. Thus, the 5 Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- as compensation to the claimant, which appears to be just and reasonable and needs no interference. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for owner of vehicle has submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly fixed the liability on owner of vehicle as on the date of accident the said tractor was insured by opposite party no. 1-insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is fully liable to pay compensation. He has further submitted that trolley attached to the tractor being a part of it is covered under insurance policy. The record reveals that trolley was loaded with 250 bags of maize at the time of accident. The record further reveals that only tractor was registered in the case and not insured as goods carriage or transport vehicle. The Tribunal held that in case, if tractor along with trolley carries the goods, the owner of vehicle should have paid its registration tax in the same manner as tax of goods carriage is paid in compliance of Section 66 of M.V. Act, 1988, which has not been done in this case. DW-2 clearly shown the insurance limits before the court below and stated that only tractor was insured with insurance company and trolley was not insured as goods carriage. The record also reveals that on the date of accident driver was having licence only for plying the tractor not for plying the transport vehicle. The Tribunal held that tractor was being plied in breach of conditions of 6 insurance policy and insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal further held that insurance company shall have the recoverable rights to recover the entire awarded amount from the owner of vehicle. I do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the evidence made by the Tribunal and the finding recorded by the Tribunal needs no interference. Learned counsel for the owner of vehicle has cited a decision before me in support of his contention, rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Surinder and others, reported in 2005 (1) T.A.C. 270 (P&H). I have gone through the decision thoroughly and I am of the view that this decision is not going to help in any manner to the appellant/owner of vehicle as the facts of the cited case are entirely different from the present case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 8.2.2006 is hereby confirmed. Cross-objection filed by opposite party no. 2- insurance company also stands dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 586 of 2006. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 7