HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 218 OF 2007 Smt. Jogender Kaur, W/o late Balvinder Singh, R/o Village Barkhera Rajput, Tehsil – Kashipur (U.S.Nagar). ............Appellant. Vs. 1. Narendra Singh, S/o Shri Kartar Singh, R/o Sarkaria House, P.O. Khalsa College, Amritsar, At present R/o Village Basai, P.O. Peerumadara, 2. National Insurance Company - Nainital Divisional Office- Nainital Road, Haldwani, District – Nainital. .....Respondents. Dated: 8th January, 2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri B.S. Parihar, counsel for the appellant and Sri V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, counsel for the respondent no. 2. This is an appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of the award. 2. By the present A.O. filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, appellant has prayed for enhancement of the award dated 12.3.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 176 of 2005 Smt. Joginder Kaur Vs. Narendra Singh and another whereby a sum of Rs. 2,66,000/- has been awarded to the claimants towards compensation. 3. According to the claimants, on 24.7.2005, when Harvilas Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was going to Nainital from Kashipur with his friend Hitank Jain and Ankur Gupta by driving Maruti Esteem Car No. PB-10AA-0967 (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle in question), as soon as he reached near Bohita Parao bend, a vehicle came in the mid of the road and as there were stones lying on the road, and in escaping from the same, the vehicle in question got disbalanced and fell down into a ditch 500 feet deep. In this accident, the deceased and one Hatank Jain died on the spot and when Ankur Gupta was being treated, he also succumbed to injuries. Post mortem was conducted on 24.7.2005 at Soban Singh Jeena Base Hospital. First Information Report of the said incident was lodged at P.S. Tallital. At the time of accident, the deceased was 24 years of age and was earning a sum of Rs. 84,000/- per annum. 4. Narendra Singh has filed a written statement-Paper No. 21 Kha, where it has been admitted that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and it has been stated that the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Company. It has also been stated that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was having valid driving licence, therefore, the liability to pay compensation is of the Insurance Company. 5. Insurance Company has filed a written statement – Paper No. 17 Kha that the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid driving licence and the insurance company was not given any information about the accident. Further, it has been stated that the amount claimed by the claimants is excessive and the deceased was gratuitous passenger in the Car, thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the claims tribunal has framed following issues: ^^1- D;k nq?kZVuk fnukad 24&7&2005 dks le; djhc le; 4 cts lka;] LFkku & gY}kuh & uSuhrky ekxZ ij HksfM;k ijoku eksM ds ikl cgn Fkkuk rYyhrky] ftyk uSuhrky esa ek:rh Lvhe dkj la[;k &ih0ch0&10,0,0&0967 ds pkyd us foijhr fn’kk ls vk jgs okgu dks cpkus ds izlkl esa rFkk lM+d ds chp esa iRFkj fxj tkus ij dkj ds vfu;fU=r gks tkus ds dkj.k ?kfVr gq;h] ftlesa gjfoykl flag dh e`R;q gks x;h\ ;fn gka rks izHkko\ 2- D;k izuxr dkj ds pkyd ds ikl nq?kZVuk dh frfFk ij oS/k pkyd ykblasl ugha Fkk\ ;fn gka rks izHkko\ 3- D;k ;kphx.k dksbZ izfrdj dh /kujkf”ak izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ ;fn gkW rks fdruh /kujkf”k fdl i{kdj ls\** 8. On behalf of the claimants, Smt. Jogendra Kuar has been examined as P.W.1. Towards the documentary evidence, per List 7Ga/1 copy of the G.D., Panchnama, Post mortem report, driving licence, Insurance Cover Note and copy of the marksheet of the B.Com have been filed. 9. On behalf of the opposite parties, Vijay Kumar Arora has been examined as D.W.1. Towards the documentary evidence, opposite party no. 1 has filed per List 22Ga Insurance Cover Note, Driving Licence, Copy of the Registration Certificate. Opposite party no. 2 has filed per list 27Ga Insurance Policy and copy of the report of Advisory Committee. 10. While deciding the Issue No. 1 as to whether the accident had taken place place by Maruti Esteem Car No. P.B. –10AA- 0967 in escaping from the vehicle coming from the opposite direction and as there were stone lying on the road, the clams tribunal has taken into consideration the statement of P.W.1- Smt. Jogendra Kaur and copy of the G.D. Paper No. 7GA/4. P.W.1 has stated in her statement that he is not the ocular witness of the incident. His statement has not been believed. Claims Tribunal has relied upon the General Diary, where it has been stated that in saving the vehicle coming from the opposite direction and there were stone lying on road, the vehicle in question got disbalanced and fell down into the gorge. Relying upon the aforesaid document, the claims tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident taken place on 24.7.2005 at about 4.00 p.m. in the area of P.S. Tallital, District Nainital by Maruit Esteem Car No. P.B. – 10AA-0967 in escaping from the vehicle coming from the opposite side and as there were stones lying on the road, in which Harvilas Singh died. This issue has been decided in favour of the claimants. 11. While deciding the Issue No. 2 as to whether at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding valid driving license, claims tribunal has relied upon the photocopy of the driving licence of Harvilas Singh Paper No. 19Ga/3, which shows that the same was valid at the time of accident. This issue has been decided accordingly. 12. While deciding the Issue No. 3 as to whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration Paper No.29Ga/2 Insurance Policy of the vehicle in question, which shows that the vehicle in question was insured for the period from 14.11.2004 to 13.11.2005 and from the Insurance Policy it appears that the insured had deposited the premium. Relying upon the aforesaid document, the claims tribunal has recorded a finding that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The claims tribunal has taken Rs. 3,000/- as notional monthly income of the deceased as no documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased has not been filed and has deducted 1/3rd of the personal expenses and has taken Rs. 2,000/- as monthly dependency (Rs. 24,000 annual dependency) of the deceased. For selection of multiplier, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration the age of the deceased as 24 years and mother as 49. The claims tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased as well as his parents, has selected multiplier of 11. Multiplying the annual dependency with 11, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,64,000/-. Apart from that the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, the claims tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,66,000/- to the claimants towards compensation along with simple interest @ 7% per annum. 13. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the multiplier selected by the claims tribunal is on lower side th0ugh it should have been of 13. Further it has been stated that the amount awarded towards compensation is a meager amount. 14. I have gone through the award. I find that the deceased was an unmarried young man and his mother is only dependent and thus, the amount awarded towards compensation appears to be sufficient. Further since the deceased was an unmarried and looking over all situation, there is no need to alter the multiplier selected by the claims tribunal. 15. In view of the aforesaid submission and the judgment cited above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the award passed by the claims tribunal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 concerned and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 16. Consequently, A.O. is dismissed with costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 8th January, 2008 Rathour