IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 462 of 2008 Smt. Sudama Devi and others .. Appellants. Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others …… Respondents. Sri U.P.S. Negi, learned counsel for the appellants. Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Sri Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent No.3. None has appeared for other respondents. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.(Oral) This appeal U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 9- 9-2008, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in MACT Case No. 53/2004, Smt. Sudama Devi and others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company and others. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 8-6-2003, deceased Vikram Singh was driving the Jeep No. U.P. 07/8431 on the instruction of respondent no.3, owner of the vehicle. He was carrying the aforesaid jeep from Pauri to Dehradun. In the night at about 10.00 P.M. the said jeep met with accident near Kaldhung on Pauri-Srinagar Motor Road due to some mechanical defects and fell in a Khud. Vikram Singh who was a mechanic died in the accident. According to the claimants the deceased used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claimant filed claim petition under the provision of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation. 3- The opposite party no.1, Oriental Insurance Company filed the written statement and denied the allegations of the petition. The insurance company 2 alleged that the driver of the offending jeep had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The claim petition has been filed by the claimants in collusion with the owner of the vehicle. The claimants have demanded a huge amount of compensation. 4- The opposite party no.2, has alleged that he had sold the offending vehicle to opposite party no.3 on 18.12.2001 and the vehicle was in the ownership and possession of opposite party no.3. Therefore he has no liability of the compensation. 5- The opposite party No.3, owner of the offending vehicle filed his written statement and admitted that the offending vehicle was purchased by him and stamp was executed in this regard. He further alleged that the deceased was a mechanic and at the time of accident he was carrying the vehicle to Dehradun for repairs on his instruction. He further alleged that the deceased was not regular driver of the vehicle. The responsibility of compensation is upon the shoulder of insurance company. 6- The learned tribunal of the basis of pleadings of parties framed necessary issues in the claim petition. Thereafter parties adduced evidence in support of their cases. The tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire evidence on record, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- against the owner Rai Singh and directed him to pay the compensation within a period of one month, failing which interest @ 8% per annum shall be payable. 7- Feeling aggrieved the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement. 3 8- The owner of the offending vehicle also filed cross objection in the appeal. 9- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10- So far as the factum of accident is concerned, the owner of the vehicle has accepted this fact that at the time of accident the deceased was not regular driver of the vehicle. He was a mechanic and on the instruction of the owner of the jeep he was carrying it to Dehradun for repairs. The death of the deceased in the motor accident is proved. The deceased was not a regular driver of the jeep therefore, the liability of compensation has rightly been fixed upon the owner as there was breach of condition of insurance policy. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the tribunal. 11- So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is concerned, the accident in the instant case has taken place on 8-6-2003, and the learned tribunal has assessed the annual notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/-, as the claimants could not establish the monthly income of the deceased by cogent and reliable evidence. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased the total dependency was taken by the tribunal as Rs. 10,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged between 25 and 30 years and the tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 18 and after adopting the multiplier of 18, the amount of compensation was assessed as Rs. 10,000/- X 18= Rs. 1,80,000/-. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, the total compensation being Rs. 1,80,000/- + Rs. 10,000/-= Rs. 4 1,90,000/-. I do not find it a case for enhancement. The learned tribunal has awarded a justified amount of compensation and the same needs no interference. 12- As far as the interest part is concerned, the tribunal has awarded the conditional interest which is not proper. In my opinion the claimants are entitled to get the interest on the awarded amount of compensation @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 13- For the reasons recorded above the appeal is liable to be partly allowed, and the cross objection filed by the owner of the vehicle is liable to be dismissed. 14- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/-, awarded by the tribunal from opposite party No.3, Rai Singh, owner of the vehicle, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, instead of conditional interest, as has been awarded by the tribunal. 15- The cross objection filed by the owner of the vehicle is dismissed. Dated: 29-7-2009 ( B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5