IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 211 of 2008 Mohd. Yunus & another .. Appellants. Vs. Amreek Singh and others .. Respondents. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. None has appeared for other respondents. Dated: 15-10-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 14-2-2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar, in MACT Case No. 37/2007. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 28-12-2006 Smt. Afsana, was pillion rider in the Motorcycle of Mohd. Yaseen. She was carrying Master Khalid on her lap. They were going to Railway station Kashipur from village Babarkheda. When the Motorcycle reached in front of Carbet Hotel Kashipur at about 11 A.M. on Kashipur- Moradabad Motor Road, Truck bearing registration No. H.R. 63/5256 came from behind in a high speed and dashed the Motorcycle, due to which Smt. Afsana sustained grievous injuries and Master Khalid died at the spot after sustaining injuries. Smt. Afsana was admitted in L.D. Bhatt Hospital, Kashipur, where she also succumbed to her injuries. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged at P.S. Kashipur. The claimants have filed claim petition for compensation in lieu of death of Smt. Afsana. According to the claimants Smt. Afsana was 28 years of age and she used to do the Dairy profession and 2 Sewing and Knitting work and she was earning about Rs. 6,000/- per month. 3- The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, driver and owner of offending truck filed written statement and alleged that the Motorcyclist himself dashed with the standing truck. The truck in question was insured with New India Assurance Company and its driver had valid driving license. 4- The opposite party No.3, New India Assurance Company filed written statement and denied the claim of the claimants. It alleged that the insurance company can be made responsible to pay compensation only when the terms of insurance policy have been observed by the insured. It also alleged that information of the accident has not been given to the insurance company, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to the compensation. 5- The opposite party No.4 Mohd. Yaseen owner of Motorcycle No. U.A. 06-E-1455 also filed his written statement and admitted the assertions made in the claim petition. He alleged that at the time of accident he was driving the Motorcycle. The deceased Smt. Afsana was pillion rider having Khalid aged 7 months on her lap. He further alleged that the driver of truck No. H.R. 63/5256 dashed the Motorcycle from behind in a negligent manner due to which Khalid died at the spot and Smt. Afsana succumbed to the injuries during the course of her treatment. He also alleged that the Motorcycle was insured with United India Insurance Company and he had valid driving license. 3 6- The United India Insurance Company, opposite party No.5, the insurer of the offending Motorcycle also contested the claim petition and alleged that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of truck driver hence the liability to pay compensation is upon the owner of the said truck. The insurance company has no liability to pay the compensation. 7- The learned Tribunal, on the pleadings of parties framed relevant issues. Thereafter parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record awarded a sum of Rs. 3,47,000/- as compensation against the opposite party, New India Assurance Company, insurer of the offending truck and directed to pay the compensation within two months from the date of the award, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 8- Feeling aggrieved the claimants have preferred this appeal before this court for enhancement of compensation. 9- The New India Assurance Company also filed Cross Objection against the impugned judgment and award. 10- Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Naresh Pant, learned counsel for respondent No.5. None has appeared on behalf of other respondents. 4 11- Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the notional income on lesser amount while calculating the dependency of the claimants upon the deceased and the notional income should have been assessed on a sum of Rs. 36,000/- per annum due to price hike. He also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded conditional interest whereas the claimants/appellants should have been awarded interest from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of final payment. 12- I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. The learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased in absence of cogent and reliable evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased, on a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per annum, and after deducting 1/3Prd P towards personal expenses of the deceased, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per annum was taken as the dependency of the claimants. The Tribunal also adopted a multiplier of 17 at the age of 28 years, which is certainly on higher side, but looking to the amount of notional income taken by the tribunal, the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal on a higher multiplier cannot be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, I do not find any ground in the appeal to enhance the compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a just and proper compensation. 5 13- For the aforesaid reasons, the cross objection filed by the New India Assurance has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14- So far as the interest part is concerned, the tribunal has awarded conditional interest on the awarded amount of compensation. In my opinion the claimants should be awarded interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. Therefore, the appeal so far as the interest part is concerned is liable to be partly allowed. 15- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed so far as the interest part is concerned. The claimants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 3,47,000/- against the opposite party No.2, New India Assurance Company, as has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, instead of conditional interest as has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The impugned judgment and award stands modified accordingly. 16- The cross objection filed by the New India Assurance Company is dismissed. ISB ( B.C. Kandpal, J.) 6