IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 323 of 2005 Murari S/o Sri Krishna Dev …. Appellant Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & another …. Respondents Sri Z.U. Siddique, learned counsel for the appellant Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent NO. 1. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2005 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.T. No. 262 of 2004, Murari Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/injured was working as a cleaner in Truck No. UP04A/0522. On 25.09.2004 at about 02:00 p.m. the appellant/injured was going from Muradabad to Kichha on his duty in the said truck. When the said truck reached at Village Pareba, Thana Bilaspur, District Rampur, the steering of the vehicle/truck was failed and it collided with the tree from the side of the cleaner, due to which he sustained multiple injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Bilaspur from there he was referred to higher Centre. Thereafter, he was taken to Sanjivini Hospital at Rudrapur and after some time he was admitted in the Ravi Futela Nursing Hospital, Rudrapur for better treatment. During the treatment, his one leg was cut and another leg steel rod was fixed. At the time of the accident, he was 18 years of age and used to earn Rs. 3,200/- per month. Therefore, he filed claim petition before the Tribunal for Rs. 15,64,000/- as compensation. 3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal concerned alleging therein that they were not informed by the insurer about of the accident as per the provision of Motor Vehicles Act and the amount of compensation is very exorbitant. It has further pleaded that the vehicle in question was running in breach of policy and the driver of the vehicle was also not having the valid driving licence. 4. Smt. Prema who was the owner of the vehicle also filed her written statement stating therein that the said accident took place due to technical fault but not by the negligence of the driver. It has further pleaded that the information with regard to the accident was communicated to the Insurance Company. It has further pleaded that the truck in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, if any. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. 6. Heard Sri Sri Z.U. Siddique, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the record. 7. The Tribunal in order to decide the issue No. 1 with regard to the present of the claimant/injured in the said truck as a cleaner, recorded the statement of Murari Lal (injured/appellant) wherein he has deposed that on the date of accident he was traveling in truck No. UP04A/0522 as a cleaner/conductor. Smt. Prema who is the owner of the truck has filed her written statement, which is paper No. 12 kha. She did not refute the aforesaid fact. Perusal of the statement of Smt. Prema, it reveals that she has not denied this fact that Murari Lal was not traveling in the said truck on the date of accident. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on record the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Murari Lal was traveling on the date of accident in the said truck as a cleaner/conductor. 8. Thereafter, the issue No. 2 decided by the Tribunal concerned wherein the Tribunal relied upon the statement of Murari Lal who has stated that the accident took place at Village Pareba, Thana Vilaspur. He has stated that the accident was caused due to steering failure. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Government Hospital at Vilaspur from where he was admitted to Sanjvini Hospital, Rudrapur and thereafter, he was admitted in Ravi Futela Hospital, Rudrapur. His ankle was imputed and steel rods were inserted in the other leg. The claimant/injured also filed photograph, which is paper No. 7 ga/2, it reveals that left leg was imputed. He has further stated that in this accident, he left leg was imputed and on the right leg steel rods were inserted. Therefore, the Tribunal decided the issue No. 2 in favour of the claimant/injured. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the injured/claimant as Rs. 3,000/- whereas the Tribunal himself admitted this fact that the injured was getting Rs. 3,200/- He has further contended that the Tribunal for the purpose of calculation of the amount considered the disability of the injured as 50% whereas the disability certificate shows, it was 60%. 10. Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company objected on the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant/injured did not produce any strong or reasonable document, which shows his actual monthly income. The Tribunal without having any documentary evidence considered the monthly salary of the injured to Rs. 3,000/-. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal also considered the multiplier on the higher side. 11. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the entire material available before me, I am of the view that the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant/injured is concerned, the Tribunal has taken into consideration this aspect that the claimant filed bills of Rs. 50,000/- which was invested by him in this medical treatment and I am of the view that this head does not require any interference. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to the claimant for suffering physical and mental agony and this amount also appears to be justified. 13. The evidence reveals that the age of the injured at the time of the accident was 18 years and on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, his one leg was imputed and a rod was implicated in another leg. The deposition of the claimant shows that he has become completely disabled, as he is not even able to walk properly. He has further stated in his deposition that he is lying on bed and as has been doing nothing. The nature of the injuries sustained by the injured makes the picture clear that the injured who is the young man has not now been able to perform any job on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The injured/claimant, therefore, is not able to live the normal life on account of the injuries sustained by him. Further the life span of the injured/claimant has been shorter and he has to suffer so many complications through out his life on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, a proper amount in the shape of the compensation should have been awarded to the claimant in this case. As per the evidence the claimant was earning Rs. 3,200/- per month as his salary. He was performing the job of the cleaner in the truck. Although his monthly income is not proved by way of any cogent and reliable evidence even then, I consider that in case, if the montly income of the claimant/injured is taken into consideration as Rs. 3,000/- per month then the annual income of the injured comes to Rs. 36,000/-. 14. Keeping in view the age of the claimant as well as the nature of injuries sustained by him, I think that the multiplier of ‘15’ to be adopted in this case would be just and proper and after adopting the multiplier of ‘15’ the total amunt comes to Rs. 5,40,000/- (36,000 X 15). As the claimant has suffered the permanent disability upto the extent of 60% as per the certificate filed by him before the Tribunal, the amount thus comes to Rs. 3,24,000/- (5,40,000 X 60/100). On the basis of the aforesaid calculation, the claimant is thus to be paid an amount of Rs. 4,09,000/- (324000+50000+35000). 15. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 30.06.2005 passed by M.A.C.T. / District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.T. No. 262 of 2004, Murari Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. is modified upto the extent that the claimant/injured awarded a sum of Rs. 4,09,000/- instead of Rs. 3,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 10.04.2008 ASWAL