IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 403 of 2006 Sharad Tandon … Appellant Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd & others … Respondents Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate, Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 31.03.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/7th Fast Track Court, Dehradun in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 180 of 2003. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.10.2006 at about 10:00 p.m., Sri Shiv Singh (deceased) was coming from Sidhowala to Gari Cantt on his scooter No. UP07/5948. When he reached near Panditwari Bazaar, suddenly, a truck bearing registration No. UGI/8817, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the said scooter due to which Shiv Singh died on the way to hospital. According to the claimants, the deceased was getting pension of Rs. 7,000/- per month and Rs. 3,000/- per month by working as supervisor in M/s D.R.B. Association, Dehradun. The claimants are the dependents upon the deceased. Hence, they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 22,30,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party No. 1 – New India Insurance Company Ltd. contested the claim petition by filing its written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. 2 It has pleaded that there was no such insurance policy in force for the relevant period bearing policy No. 31321701- 20777/234, which was filed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. It has also alleged that the claim petition was filed after a lapse of about seven years and such a long period creates suspicion about the alleged accident. Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 also contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements denying most of the allegations made in the claim petition. They have pleaded that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It has also alleged that on the date of accident, the driver of the truck was having the valid and effective driving licence and the truck in question was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability to pay compensation lies upon the Insurance Company. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. In support of their cases, both the parties led evidence before the Tribunal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 87,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2006. 5. Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate, Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 6. I have gone through the entire material available before me. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record held 3 that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck in question. The Tribunal relied on the basis of the statements of P.W.2 – Jaypal Singh Rawat and P.W.3 – Laxmidutt Pant who have stated that on the date of accident they were present at the spot and had seen the accident. The report of the incident was lodged by Ram Singh Thapa at Police Station Cantt. The Tribunal while deciding issue relating to the rash and negligence also considered the report, which was lodged by Ram Singh Thapa. The Tribunal also considered the site plan of the accident which is paper No. 27C/2. The opposite parties did not produce any evidence to controvert the factum of accident as alleged by the claimant. The Tribunal after considering the entire material available on record has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. 7. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal in order to calculate the amount of compensation considered notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. According to the claim petition, the deceased was getting Rs. 7,000/- per month as pension and Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary from M/s D.R.B. Associates, Dehradun as a supervisor. The claimants have also claimed compensation under different heads and claimed Rs. 22,30,000/-, in total. Smt. Sankun Thapa did not adduce any evidence, which may show that she was getting the pension in lieu of her husband and she has also not produced any evidence, which may show that her husband was retired army man and was getting pension. The claimants have produced paper No. 39/B, wherein the monthly salary of the deceased was shown as Rs. 2500/-, but the paper appears to be quite suspicious as there was no date on the letter head and designation of signing authority was 4 lacking, therefore, the Tribunal did not consider this document as a genuine one while calculating the amount of compensation. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal considered the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency comes of the claimants comes to Rs. 10,000/- per annum. In the postmortem examination report the age of the deceased was shown as 55 years and as mentioned in the second schedule appended to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ‘8’ which appears to be quite reasonable. After adopting the multiplier of ‘8’, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 80,000/- (10000 x 8). Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of company and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 87,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment. 8. The Tribunal imposed the liability of compensation upon the owner as well as driver of the vehicle in question on the ground that the cover note, filed by the appellant – owner of the vehicle was forged document and the truck was not insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident, therefore, the liability for payment of compensation is upon the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before the Court that the appellant had taken the policy from the authorized agent of the Insurance Company. He has further submitted that after paying the premium to the agent, 5 he had issued the cover note of insurance policy to the appellant. If the authorized agent of the Insurance could not deposit the premium of insurance policy with the Insurance Company, then the appellant cannot be said to be responsible for the same, therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has made the rival contention and has submitted that the Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record rightly fastened the liable to pay compensation upon the owner as well as driver of the truck in question. He has further submitted that the policy produced by the appellant before the Tribunal was not issued by the Insurance Company. The appellant has produced policy No. 31321701- 20777/234 for the period of 27.08.1996 to 26.08.1997 but after investigation, it was found that on 27.08.1996 the said policy was not in existence. Therefore, the Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record fastened the liability of compensation upon the owner as well as driver of the vehicle in question. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the entire record. From the perusal of statement of D.W.1-Suresh Gautam – Advocate appointed by the New India Insurance Company Ltd. as an investigator of its case. During the course of investigation, he found that the policy, which was produced by the owner of the vehicle, was found forged. The Insurance Company in order to support its case produced D.W.2 – Umesh Sambharwal, Branch Manager who has stated in his evidence that the paper No. 59/C was forged document and during the financial year 1996-97, this pass book has not been issued from his Branch. The 6 appellant did not produce any evidence except the forged insurance policy in support of his case. The Tribunal considering the statement of Advocate as well as Branch Manager of the Insurance Company come to the conclusion that the policy produced by the appellant is forged and therefore, the liability to pay compensation lies upon the appellant. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record has rightly decreed the claim petition against the appellant. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. 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.) 11.09.2008 ASWAL