IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 664 of 2006 Munna @ Munney Master & another … Appellants Vs Gulam Ahmad & another … Respondents Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellants Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 27.07.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 122 of 2005, Munna @ Munnay Master & another Vs Gulam Ahmad & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.05.2005, Shamim (deceased) was going from his home to the workshop, at about 10:00 a.m., when he reached near Tanda Road, suddenly, a truck bearing registration No. HP51/0650, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the said motorcycle. In the said accident, Shamim sustained serious injures and succumbed to injuries. According to the claim petition, on the date of accident the deceased was 24 years of age and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month. Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement before the Tribunal. Opposite party No. 1 – owner of the truck in question alleged therein that the vehicle in question was insured with New India Insurance Company on the date of accident. On the other hand, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. pleaded in 2 its written statement that claim petition was liable to be dismissed for non joinder of the necessary parties. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues for consideration, which were discussed in great detail. Thereafter both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 27.07.2006. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement the amount of compensation. 6. Heard Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 7. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal on the basis of evidence of Munna (P.W.1), Jalil Ahmad (P.W.2), site map, First Information Report etc. held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR51/0650. It is also clear from the perusal of the record, the owner of the offending vehicle could not produce the driver of the vehicle in question before the Tribunal in order to support his case. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal relating to the rash and negligent driving of the truck in question. 3 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of quantum. He has submitted that Tribunal has committed error by taking into account the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. He has further submitted that the accident took place in the year 2005 and in order to support his version he has relied upon the decision passed by Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No. 02 of 2005, Shobhan Singh & another Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd. & another on 01.11.2006 wherein this Court considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum due to price hike. 9. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the Tribunal decided issue No. 3 in order to calculate the amount of compensation. As far as the compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants is concerned, it appears that the deceased had been working as a mechanic of the motorcycle and was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. Although, the salary certificate has been filed by the claimants and the salary certificate has been proved by Mehmood Ahmad (P.W.3), but merely by filing the salary certificate and proving the same by a witness, it is not established that actually the deceased had been earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month. No cogent and reliable evidence has been produced by the claimants in order to show the actual income of the deceased. 10. In the absence of any evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased as well as in view of the judgment given by this Court, the notional income, keeping in view the price hike should be considered to be Rs. 36,000/- per annum where the cogent and reliable evidence establishing the income of the deceased has not been adduced. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the financial dependency of the 4 claimants comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The deceased was 24 years of age at the time of the accident and he was unmarried man. Therefore, in order to calculate the compensation, the age of the parents of the deceased would be taken into account. The age of the parents of the deceased was 45 and 43 years respectively. Keeping in view the catina of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, the multiplier cannot travel more than ‘10’. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid calculation, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- (24000 X 10). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is not to be disturbed. However, the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment, which is admittedly on the lesser side. In my opinion the amount awarded in favour of the claimants should be paid by the Insurance Company along with interest @ 6% per annum instead of 5% per annum. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,42,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 2,42,000/- instead of Rs. 1,32,000/- along with interest @ 6% instead of 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment as has been awarded by the Tribunal. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 12.12.2008 ASWAL