IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINTIAL Appeal From Order No. 858 of 2006 Dinesh Chandra Pant … Appellant Vs Uttaranchal Transport Corporation … Respondent Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for the appellant Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent With Appeal From Order No. 674 of 2006 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation … Appellant Vs Dinesh Chandra Pant … Respondent Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for the respondent Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment and award arising out of same accident. One appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation, while the other has been filed by the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation for setting aside the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, both these appeals are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, I am mentioning the facts in A.O. No. 858 of 2006. 2. Appeal No. 858 of 2006 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the judgment dated 19.08.2006 and decree dated 26.08.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pithoragarh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 106 of 2004. 2 3. Appeal No. 674 of 2006 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellant/Uttaranchal Transport Corporation against the judgment dated 19.08.2006 and decree dated 26.08.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pithoragarh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 106 of 2004. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/appellant on 16.12.2002 was traveling in bus No. UP29/0134 from Pithoragarh to Delhi in order to purchase some goods for his shop. On 17.12.2002 at about 03:30 a.m., the bus was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, when the said bus reached near Dalatpur Chauki on Rajhora bridge, the driver lost control over the bus and the bus fell down the bridge. Some of the passengers died at the spot while the claimant sustained serious injuries on him. According to the claim petition, he remained in the hospital for a very long time and he has incurred approximately Rs. 2.50 lacs on his medical treatment. At the time of the accident, he was 44 years of age and he used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month by repairing radio and televisions. Hence, he filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- before the Tribunal as compensation. 5. Opposite party – Uttar Pradesh (now ‘Uttaranchal’) Transport Corporation contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal concerned. It has alleged that the accident took place due to mechanical fault and brake failure of the bus. On the date of accident, the driver of the bus driving the bus slowly and cautiously. It has further pleaded that the amount of compensation is very exorbitant. 3 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,09,390/- as compensation in favour of the claimant vide judgment and award dated 19.08.2006. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/claimant preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. The Uttaranchal Transport Corporation also preferred an appeal before this Court against the said judgment and award. 8. Heard Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 9. The Tribunal while deciding the issue relating to the rash and negligent has considered the statement of Sri Dinesh Chandra, who has corroborated the version made in the claim petition. He has stated that on 16.12.2002 at about 02:00 p.m. he boarded in bus No. UP29/0134 from Pithoragarh to Delhi. He has further stated on 17.12.2002, when the said bus reached near Dalatpur post at Rajhora Bridge, the driver of the bus lost control over the bus and the said bus fell down the bridge. On the other hand, Kishan Singh (D.W.1) has admitted the factum of the accident. Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has stated that the accident took place due to technical fault but Kishan Singh (D.W.1) has not supported this version. In this way this fact has not been proved that the accident took place due to technical failure. Further the driver 4 of the bus has not produced any witness who support that he was driving the bus slowly and cautiously. Therefore, the Tribunal, on the basis of the material available on record as well as hearing learned counsel for the parties, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. I do not find any ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has contended that the Tribunal has not considered this aspect that the claimant/appellant is a I.T.I. diploma holder and was running a shop in the name and style of Hill Radios TV Service, Purana Bazar, Pithoragarh. He has further submitted that he used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month whereas the Tribunal has considered his monthly wages as Rs. 3,000/- which appears to be quite less. 11. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal has to assess the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum but the Tribunal has committed illegality by taking into consideration the monthly income as Rs. 3,000/-. In the absence of any documentary evidence relating to the monthly salary of the claimant, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- appears to be quite excessive. 12. From the perusal of the record, it appears to me that the claimant/appellant has filed medical bills incurred by him on his medical treatment is Rs. 2,02,390/- which is not under dispute. As far as the monthly income of the claimant is concerned, he has not produced any documentary evidence 5 which may show his monthly income. According to the claim petition, he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and P.W.3 has stated that he used to earn Rs. 6000/- to 7,000/- per month by repairing radio and television but as far as documentary evidence is concerned, he has not produced any evidence in his support. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case, assessed his monthly income as Rs. 3,000/-. Perusal of paper No. 7C/40, which shows 55% disability of claimant issued by office of Chief Medical Officer, Pithoragarh. Further the Tribunal considering the age of the claimant as 44 years adopted the multiplier of ‘15’ in order to calculate the amount of compensation, which appears to be justified. In this way, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,97,000/- (3000 X 12 X 15 X 55/100). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental and physical pain. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 5,09,390/- (297000 + 202390 + 1000) which shall be paid within a period of one month failing which the same amount shall be payable along with interest @ 8% from the date of accident till the date of deposit of amount. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent/Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has submitted that so far as the interest part is concerned, the Tribunal awarded interest @ 8% per annum, which appears to be on the higher side. 14. In my view, it should be 7.5% per annum instead of 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 15. Accordingly, A.O. No. 858 of 2006 filed by the claimant for enhancement of amount of compensation is 6 dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs. 16. In view of the above observation, Appeal No. 674 of 2006 filed by the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation is partly allowed. The impugned judgments and awards dated 19.05.2006 is modified upto the extent that the claimant/appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 5,09,390/- along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment. 17. Let the copy of this judgment be placed in A.O. No. 674 of 2006. 18. The statutory amount deposited before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 13.08.2008 ASWAL