IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 82 of 2007 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Rajeshwari & others …Respondents With Appeal From Order No. 109 of 2007 Smt. Rajeshwari & others ...Appellants Versus Sumer Singh & another …Respondents In A.O. No.82/2007: Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. T.C. Pande, Advocate for appellant Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 6 In A.O. No.109/2007: Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate for appellants Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. T.C. Pande, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: 17-03-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Since both the appeals arise out of same judgment and award and similar question of fact of law is involved in both the appeals, hence, they are being deiced together. Both these appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have been preferred against the same judgment and award dated 22.12.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 164 of 2005, Smt. Rajeshwari & others versus Sri Sumer Singh and another. 2 Brief facts of the case as narrated in claim petition are that on 15.10.2000 deceased-Ompal had gone to village Samathal P.S. Pakbada in his relation and on 16.10.2000 at 5.00 a.m. when he was awaiting passenger vehicle near Tempo Stand at Kailsa Tiraha in Pakbada town, a Maruti Zen Car bearing No. UP-25H/8717 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the deceased by coming to its wrong side, due to which deceased died at the spot itself. It has also been alleged that deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death and had been earning a sum of Rs.3500/- per month by working as Salesman. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation along with interest of 12% per annum against opposite parties severally or jointly. The opposite parties in the claim petition contested the claim before the Tribunal and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- along with conditional interest of 6% per annum, vide judgment and award dated 22.12.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the insurance company has preferred A.O. No. 82/2007 before this Court. 3 The claimants have also filed A.O. No. 109/2007 against the impugned judgment and award for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T.C. Pande, learned counsel for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Mr. Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for claimants and perused the record. Learned counsel for insurance company has firstly submitted that in this case accident had taken place on 16th October, 2000. The claim petition was filed in the year 2005. He has stated that manner in which accident had taken place as well as involvement of offending vehicle in question, could not be established by the claimants with cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment and award by which it has been considered that offending vehicle in question is involved in the accident, is erroneous. I do not find any force in this argument. The Tribunal has taken into account evidence of eye- witness itself in the claim petition. The nature of the claim petition is summary, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have taken into account the technicalities of the case. The eye-witness PW-2 has been produced in the case and the Tribunal on the basis of evidence of eye-witness has come to the conclusion that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Maruti Zen Car No. U.P.-25H/8717. The Tribunal has also taken into account post-mortem report as well as site plan prepared by the police and has come to the conclusion that accident had taken 4 place on 16.10.2000 at 5.00 a.m. at Kailsa Tiraha, P.S. Pakwada, District Moradabad, in which Ompal succumbed to injuries. I do not find anything in the finding recorded by the Tribunal which may suggest that the same require any indulgence by this Court. Learned counsel for insurance company has further invited my attention towards calculation made by the Tribunal in awarding the amount of compensation. He has further submitted that claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and income exceeding Rs.42,000/- per annum could not have been taken into account by the Tribunal. I find force in this argument. The lower court record shows that claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and in the instant case the annual income of deceased has been assessed at Rs.42,000/- which cannot be said to be justified in any manner. I, therefore, take the annual income of deceased as Rs.40,000/- and after deducting one-third from the same, the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.26,670/- (rounded Rs.26,700/-). The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 26 years. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal in the instant case is certainly on higher side. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘18’ which cannot be said to be justified in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the cases of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Versus S. Rajpriya & others, reported in 2005 (4) SC 87, The Managing Director, TNSTC versus Sripriya & others, reported in 2007(5) Supreme 301 and New 5 India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana (Smt) and others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 94. To my mind, just and appropriate multiplier in this case would be ‘16’ keeping in view the age of the deceased, which was 26 years at the time of accident and after adopting the multiplier of ‘16’ the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants comes to Rs.26,700 x 16=Rs.4,27,200/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal for loss of love and affection as Rs.6,000/- shall remain intact. On the basis of aforesaid assessment of evidence, the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants (appellants in A.O. No. 109/2007) comes to Rs.4,33,200/-. As the vehicle in question was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant in A.O. No.82/2007), therefore, the aforesaid amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance company to the claimants. Out of total awarded amount, minor sons and daughters namely Master Rahul, Km. Jyoti, Master Ketan, Km. Bhawna shall get Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) each and the amount pertaining to their shares shall be kept in fixed deposit with some Nationalized Bank for the period till they attain the age of majority. Smt. Jamuna Devi is the mother of the deceased and being mother she will also get a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) out of total awarded amount. Rest of the awarded amount shall be paid to Smt. Rajeshwari-widow of deceased. 6 With the aforesaid observations, A.O. No. 82 of 2007 is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 22.12.2006 is modified to the extent that Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay a sum of Rs.4,33,200/- (Four Lacs Thirty Three Thousand and Two Hundred) as compensation to the claimants instead of Rs.5,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. A.O. No. 109 of 2007 preferred by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, stands dismissed in view of the observations made by me in the body of the judgment. Any amount including statutory amount deposited with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 109 of 2007. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP