IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 491 of 2006 State of U.P. through Collector, Moradabad & another …Appellants Versus Madhusudan Pandey & another .. Respondents Smt. Beena Pandey, learned S.C. (U.P.), for appellants Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, for claimants-respondents Dated: May 9, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 20.10.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.T. No. 42/1998, Madhu Sudan Pandey and another versus State of U.P. through Collector Moradabad and another. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the claimants are that deceased-Girish Chandra Pandey was going to Halduchaur on 23.9.1998 and due to rain he stopped his scooter near Matkota Temple and a Jeep bearing Registration No. 21/D-6900 coming rashly from Rudrapur side dashed the scooterist due to which the deceased-Girish Chandra Pandey was seriously injured and he succumbed to injuries in the Hospital. It has been alleged that deceased was running shop and was earning Rs.5000/- per month. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. 2 The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and alleged that since the deceased was not paying the income tax therefore his monthly income of Rs.5000/- cannot be accepted. In fact the deceased was plying his scooter rashly and it was raining at the time of accident due to which scooter slipped away and accident occurred. It has further been pleaded that at the time of accident the scooterist was having no driving licence. It has been admitted that deceased died on 24.9.1998 and at the time of accident Jeep No. U.P.21/D-6900 was the Government property and insurance company of said Jeep was not made party. The amount of compensation claimed is excessive. The State of U.P. was wrongly made party in the claim petition and therefore the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 Tribunal after having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition in favour of claimants for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- payable by opposite parties. The Tribunal also directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid by opposite parties within a period of two months, failing which, the claimants shall be entitled to get an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellants/State of U.P. 3 and District Commandant have preferred the appeal before this Court. Heard Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel (U.P.) for appellants, Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, for claimants-respondents and perused the record. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. Perusal of evidence on record reveals that the learned Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence available before it came to the conclusion that accident did not take place due to negligence of scooterist rather driver of Jeep No. U.P.21D/6900-Pradeep Kumar collided by plying said jeep rashly and negligently, in which deceased Girish Chandra Pandey died and therefore opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the claimants on account of death of deceased-Girish Chandra Pandey. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, PW-1 Madhu Sudan Pandey stated that his son deceased- Girish Chandra Pandey aged 22 years was earning Rs.5000/- per month from General Store at Pithoragarh. The opposite parties have taken plea that no documentary evidence has been adduced by claimants with regard to shop. This plea taken by opposite parties cannot be accepted as PW-1 Madhu Sudan Pandey has stated in his cross examination that the shop of his son was not registered at the time of accident and he did not pay income tax, but deceased was having valid driving licence to ply the scooter, photo copy of which has been filed on 4 record. Therefore, there was no justification to disbelieve the version of PW-1 Madhu Sudan Pandey. The Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat concerned also issued certificate (paper no. 20Ga/2) which shows that deceased-Girish Chandra Pandey had been doing the business of shop in village Tapovan for the last three years and was earning income of Rs.5000/- per month. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence in this regard. The learned Tribunal after having considered the evidence adduced by claimants accepted the monthly income of deceased as Rs.2000/- per month at the time of accident, which appears to be justified and the same does not require any interference. The evidence further reveals that deceased- Girish Chandra Pandey was unmarried at the time of accident but claimants were dependent upon the deceased. Claimant no. 2 Uma Pandey was fully dependent upon deceased as at that time she was aged about 18 years and liability of her marriage was upon the deceased. Claimant no. 1 Madhusudan Pandey was 59 years of age at the time of accident and he did not do any work. Therefore, the Tribunal keeping in view the monthly income of deceased as Rs.2000/- per month, adopted the multiplier of ‘10’ which appears to be just and reasonable. Therefore, had the deceased been alive he would have earned Rs.2,40,000/- in ten years for looking after the father and sister. After deducting 1/3rd out of that amount towards personal expenses of deceased, the total financial dependency of claimants comes to Rs.1,60,000/-. I 5 do not find any illegality in the method adopted by learned Tribunal. In view of above discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 6