IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 372 of 2006 Smt. Bala Devi & others ... Appellants Versus Pramod Kumar & another ... Respondents Sri Narendra Bali, Advocate Advocate for appellants Sri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 Sri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, for respondent no. 2 Dated: April 23, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.4.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Haridwar, in M.A.C.P. No. 117/2003, Salekh Chand vs. Pramod Kumar and another. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants, are that on 6.9.2003 at 12.00 hours near K.V. Inter College, Laksar, Salekh Chand was dashed by driver of motorcycle no. U.A.08-9507 which was being driven by motorcyclist rashly and negligently and on account of said accident Salekh Chand sustained injuries and with the passage of time he succumbed to those injuries. The claimants pleaded that at the time of death the deceased was 48 years of age and used to earn Rs.6000/- per month. The claimants thus claimed compensation on account of death of Salekh Chand. The opposite party no. 1-owner of vehicle filed written statement denying the factum of accident. He has pleaded that claim petition has been filed on wrong facts and same is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party no.2-insurnace company filed written statement refuting the contents of claim petition and alleged that vehicle in question was not having valid papers and valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 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 learned Tribunal after having considered the material available before it and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation, in favour of claimants, payable by opposite party no. 1- Pramod Kumar (owner of vehicle) within a period of one month from the date of judgment, along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of presentation of petition till the date of payment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellants-claimants have preferred the appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard Sri Narendra Bali, learned counsel for appellants, Sri R.P. Nautiyal, for respondent no. 1, Sri Pankaj Purohit, for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Tribunal has committed error in awarding the compensation by taking the notional income of deceased at Rs.15000/- per annum, whereas it should have applied the provisions of Minimum Wages Act in awarding the compensation as the deceased was a farmer. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and award. The evidence on record shows that the witness- Anil Kumar produced by claimants has deposed in his statement that on 6.9.2003 at about 12.00 hours in his presence driver of Motorcycle No. U.A.08A 9507 dashed the Salekh Chand due to rash and negligence on account of which Salekh Chand sustained injuries. This witness has supported the pleadings of claim petition, which have also been proved by the contents of F.I.R. On the contrary, there is no evidence on record adduced by opposite parties which may render the statement of claimants as unacceptable. Therefore, the Tribunal after having considered oral as well as documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligence of motorcyclist. According to the wife of deceased- Salekh Chand, deceased succumbed to his injuries sustained in accident. The Tribunal recorded a finding that on the basis of evidence available on record it is not possible to express different view on this issue. I do not find any reason to disturb the finding recorded by Tribunal in this regard. As far as the issue with regard to valid driving licence of motorcyclist at the time of accident and breach of insurance policy by insured, is concerned, the record reveals that motorcyclist was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and driving licence which was issued to him, was valid from 12.9.2003 to 11.3.2004, whereas accident occurred on 6.9.2003. The Tribunal has rightly decided the issue by holding that there is breach of conditions of insurance policy by motorcyclist as he was plying the motorcycle without having any valid driving license. I also do not find infirmity in the finding recorded by Tribunal in this regard. As regards issue regarding amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants and liability of payment of compensation, is concerned, the record reveals that as motorcyclist was not having valid driving license and no evidence has been adduced by motorcyclist with regard to insurance, therefore, the owner of vehicle i.e. motorcyclist is liable to pay compensation. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the claimants have come up with the case that the deceased had been earning Rs.6000/- per month at the time of his death, but no evidence has been adduce by the claimants in this regard. The Tribunal did not have any other option except to adopt the principle of notional income under these circumstances, therefore, in the absence of any evidence with regard to income of the deceased, the notional income of deceased is to be taken into considered, which comes to Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd oiut of it towards personal expenses of deceased, it comes to Rs. 10,000/- per annum. It is an admitted case that at the time of accident the deceased was 48 years of age, therefore keeping in view the age of deceased multiplier of ‘13’ adopted by the Tribunal appears to be just and adequate. After adopting the multiplier of ‘13’ as well as keeping in view the annual financial dependency of the claimants, the total compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants, comes to Rs.10,000/- x 13= Rs.1,30,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to the claimants towards loss of dependency and the same does not require any interference. As far as amount for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal under other different heads is concerned, the same does not require any interference. The interest as has been indicated in the award also does not require any interference. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP