IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 118 of 2007 Smt. Roshni Deiv … Appellant Vs Surat Singh & another … Respondents Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant Sri R.B. Aggarwal, learned counself or the respondent No. 2 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 17.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 111 of 2005, Smt. Roshni Devi Vs Surat Singh Sajwan & others, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sun of Rs. 1,77,000/- along with conditional interest @ 8% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sri Diwani Singh @ Deepak Kantura (deceased) on 09.07.2005 was going from Hindola Khal to Rishikesh in vehicle No. UP08/3031. At about 11:15 a.m., when he reached near Bhrampuri, the said vehicle met with accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question, due to which he died at the spot. According to the claim petition, the deceased was 20 years of age and used to earn Rs. 6,250/- per month by working as a clerk with a Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the claimant filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 31,70,000/- as compensation. 3. Thereafter notices were issued to the parties, who have contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal concerned. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. On the 2 basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place at about 11:15 a.m. on 09.07.2005 near Brimhapuri within police station Muni-ki-Reti, District Tehri Garhwal due to rash and negligent driving of passenger bus No. UP08/3031 by its driver resulting death of Sri Diwan Singh @ Deep Kaintura as alleged? 2. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not duly licenced causing breach of terms and conditions of insurance as well as the owner of the vehicle die not possess valid permit and fitness of the vehicle in violation of the provisions of M.V.Act as alleged by OP No. 2 in paragraph Nos. 5 and 7 respectively of its WS? If so its effect? 3. To what compensation, are the petitioner and other dependents mentioned in para No. 19 of the petition entitled and from which of the opp. Parties? 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal has decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,77,000/- along with conditional interest @ 8% per annum vide judgment and award dated 17.11.2006. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.B. Aggarwal, learned counself or the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 3 7. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any submission. The Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record as well as considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the accident took placed due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question and there is no dispute about this. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of quantum. He has submitted that the deceased was 20 years of age and was working as a clerk and used to earn Rs. 6,250/- per month, but the Tribunal did not consider this aspect of matter and has taken notional income of Rs. 15,000/- in order to calculate the amount of compensation. The impugned judgment and award is bad in the eye of law and is liable to be modified. 9. As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal has considered this aspect while deciding issue No. 3. The Division Bench of this Court decided on 01.11.2006 in Appeal No. 02 of 2005, Shobhan Singh & another Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd. & another on 01.11.2006 wherein this Court considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- due to price hike. The approach adopted by the Tribunal appears to be erroneous as the accident in this case accident had taken place on 09.09.2005, in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court the notional income which has been taken into account by the Tribunal in this case, is certainly on the lesser side. The Tribunal has calculated the 4 notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses has taken the financial dependency of the claimant as Rs. 10,000/- per annum. Hence, in this case the suitable amount of notional income shall be taken as Rs. 36,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd amount from the total annual income of the deceased, the financial dependency of the claimant should have been assessed as Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 21 years and he was married at the time of the accident. 10. Further, from the perusal of the record, it reveals that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as ‘17’ is admittedly on the higher side. In view of the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Kalpana & others reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 94, T.N. State Transport Corporation Vs S. Rajapriya & others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 276 and The Managing Director, TNSTC Vs Sripriya & others reported in 2007 (5) Supreme 301, the multiplier in this case would be ‘15’ is just and proper. 11. After adopting the multiplier of ‘15’, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,60,000/- (24000 X 15). The amount paid by the Tribunal under different heads shall remain intact. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,67,000/- to be awarded in favour of the claimant. The amount awarded by the Tribunal to the parents shall remain intact and the enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimant/appellant. 12. The Tribunal has further awarded the conditional interest on the amount of compensation. In my view the 5 amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant should be paid along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3,67,000/- instead of Rs. 1,77,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum (instead of conditional interest) from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.12.2008 ASWAL