IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 596 of 2007 Uttarakhand Transport Corporation … Appellant Vs Smt. Shyam Lata & others … Respondents Smt. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 03.10.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 74 of 2004, Smt. Shyamlata Vs Uttaranchal Transport Corporation & another. 2. Brief facts of the case that the on 05.06.2003 the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL9S/1010 and Sonu Sehgal was a pillion rider and was proceedings towards Dehradun from Modinagar. When they reached near Belra Picket, Roorkee, suddenly, a bus bearing registration No. UA07B/6745, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the said motorcycle, due to which they received multiple serious injures and died on the way to hospital. According to the claimant, the deceased was 22 years of age and used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. Hence an amount of Rs. 15.00 lacs was claimed as compensation. 3. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim petition by filing their joint written statement before the 2 Tribunal concerned alleging therein that the motorcycle came in a high speed and collided with the bus in question. It has also alleged that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. It has further alleged that the claim petition is bad for non joinder of insurer of the motorcycle. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 3,16,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum vide judgment and award dated 03.10.2007. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award the appellant/Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation Ltd. has preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Smt. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 7. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus is concerned, that appears to be completely justified and I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is illegal in the eye of law. He has submitted that at the time of awarding the amount of compensation, the age of the parents 3 of the deceased was 50 and 41 years respectively. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that keeping in view the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman Iyer & another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, the multiplier cannot travel more than ‘10’. 9. As far as the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed this aspect while deciding issue No. 4, but the approach adopted by the trial court appears to be wrong on two grounds, firstly, the trial court has assessed the notional income of the deceased on the higher side. There was no cogent and reliable evidence available on record, which may indicate that the deceased had been in fact earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the job of the attendant at petrol pump. Although certificate has been filed by the claimants in this regard, but that certificate with regard to the salary of the deceased could not be established by the claimants. The notional income prevailing at that time i.e. year 2003 would be taken into consideration and in the year 2003, the notional income of a person whose actual income could not be established would be Rs. 30,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd amount out of the same, the annual financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 20,000/- per annum. The Tribunal further fell in error in adopting the multiplier on the higher side. The deceased was an unmarried boy at the time of the accident. Therefore, the age of the parents would be relevant for the assessment of the income of the deceased. The age of the parents of the deceased was 50 and 41 respectively. Therefore, by taking the mean of the age of the parents, the multiplier in the instant case could not have travel more than ‘10’ in view of the decision of in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 4 Vs Laxman Iyer & another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731. In case, the multiplier of ‘10’ is adopted in this case then the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,00,000/- (20000 X 10). The amount awarded by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- under other different heads shall remain intact. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,04,500/-. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 2,04,500/- instead of Rs. 3,16,500/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. 11. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 12.06.2009 ASWAL