IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 812 of 2006 Bhupendra Singh & another … Appellants Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & another … Respondents Sri Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for appellants Sri K.K. Shah, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Sri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: June 17, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 163 of M.V. Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellants- claimants, against the judgment and award dated 23.9.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Pithoragarh in Claim Petition No. 79 of 2002, whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- to the claimants. Brief facts of the case are that deceased- Virendra Singh @ Veeru in traveling in Jeep No. U.P.03/3183 as passenger from Kalsinkatiya to Pithoragarh. The said vehicle met with an accident on its way before Forest Chowki situated at Chandak due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. In the said accident, the deceased sustained injuries on his person and died on the spot. At the time of his death, the deceased used to earn Rs.9000/- per month from gardening and out of this amount he used to give Rs.6000/- to the claimants. The claimants claimed a sum of 2 Rs.12,50,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite party no. 1 owner of vehicle filed written statement and pleaded that on the date of accident driver of jeep-Harish Kandpal was driving the vehicle slowly and carefully. When the said vehicle reached at bend of Forest Rest House, a Jeep No. U.P.03/3167 coming from the side of Pithoragarh rashly, collided with a passenger sitting in jeep of opposite party no. 1 from the side, due to which the passenger fell on the ground and died. In the said accident the entire negligence is on the part of driver of Jeep No. U.P.03/3167. The vehicle of opposite party no. 1 was insured with opposite party no. 2-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident and said vehicle was having all valid papers and driving licence. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. The opposite party no. 2-insurance company filed written statement and pleaded that offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy and at the time of accident vehicle was not having valid papers and driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The 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.1,02,000/- in favour of claimants, payable by opposite party no. 2-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.. The Tribunal also directed that this 3 amount of compensation is to be paid by insurance company within a period of thirty days, failing which, an interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable to the claimants from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for appellants, Sri K.K. Shah, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. The only point agitated before me by the counsel for the appellant is that the amount of award granted by the Tribunal is meager and liable to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the award passed by the Tribunal. The record reveals that the accident in this case took place on 26.2.2002. The income of the deceased has been alleged in the claim petition as Rs.9000/- per month but the claimants could not produce any cogent and reliable evidence in order to establish the income of the deceased and in view of absence of any cogent evidence to establish the income of the deceased the Tribunal has taken into consideration the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum. The deceased was 4 admittedly an unmarried person at the time of accident and age of parents at the time of accident has been indicated as 44 and 45 years in the claim petition. In order to calculate the amount of compensation the age of parents would be taken into consideration as the deceased was an unmarried person aged about 18 years. Keeping in view the age of the parents-claimants as well as Second Schedule of M.V. Act, the Tribunal has selected the multiplier of ‘13’. The learned Tribunal further held that in case if parents of deceased are claimants, then multiplier of ‘10’ would be just and proper in view of decision of this Court passed in the case Smt. Moolwati vs. Uttaranchal Raod Transport Coproation, 2006(2) U.C.1103. This Court has further observed in the aforesaid case that there is provision of deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after applying the principle laid down by this Court in Smt. Moolwati’s case (supra) and after deducting 1/3rd out of Rs.15,000/-, the annual income of deceased in this case has been assessed at Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal. After applying the multiplier of ‘10’ the financial dependency of claimants has been worked out at Rs.10,000 x 10=Rs.1,00,000/-, which appears to be justified. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,02,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimants, which appears to be just and reasonable and needs no interference. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. 5 So far as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same requires slight modification by this Court. The Tribunal has directed the insurance company to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of thirty days from the date of passing the impugned award, failing which, interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable from the date of petition till the date of actual payment. In my opinion, in the interest of justice, the interest @ 9% per annum should be awarded on the amount of compensation, from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, instead of conditional interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the actual payment. In view of above discussion the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing the petition till the date of final payment, instead of conditional interest of 9% per annum imposed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP