IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 465 of 2005 1. Smt. Radha W/o Late Surat Singh 2. Km. Sandhya D/o Late Surat Singh (minor) 3. Master Sachin S/o Late Surat Singh (minor) Appellants No. 2 and 3 through their mother and Natural guardian Smt. Radha (appellant No. 1) All R/o 25/1 Mitralok Colony Ballupur Road, Dehradun ... Appellants Vs 1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager 9 Subhash Road near Kanak Cinema Dehradun 2. Ram Jas S/o Ram Asre R/o 19 New Road, Dehradun 3. Brij Mohan Kotnala S/o Sri Ram Kotnala R/o 125 Ajabpur Kalan Matamandir Colony Dehradun ... Respondents Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants Sri M.K. Goyel, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellant/claimants against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2005 passed by District Judge/M.A.C.T., Dehradun in M.A.C.C. No. 157 of 2004, Smt. Radha & others Vs Ram Jas & others whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,42,000/- in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.2004, Sri Surat Singh was coming from the Chakrata Road to Surbhi Hotel, Dehradun on his scooter bearing No. DHS/4199. When 2 he reached near Punjab National Bank, one truck bearing No. UP07C/2527, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter of the Sri Surat Singh resulting which he died at the shop. At the time of the accident, Surat Singh was aged about 36 years and working as a driver in Uttaranchal Police and getting salary of Rs. 3050/- per month. Therefore, the claimants have filed the claim petition for Rs. 8,78,000/- before the Tribunal concerned by award of compensation. 3. The driver and the owner of the truck contested the claim petition by filing their joint written statement. It was averred in the written submission that said truck was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of the accident. It has further submitted that the claimants did not make party owner of the scooter and Insurance Company, therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable. 4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition and its written statement before the Tribunal concerned. It was pleaded that on the date of the accident, the driver of the truck was not having the valid driving licence. The claim petition was filed in collision of claimant and the owner of the vehicle, therefore, it was liable to be rejected. 5. On the basis of the pleadings adduced by the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in detail. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available before it, decreed the claim petition in favour of the claimants by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,42,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 3 the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment vide judgment and order dated 05.08.2005. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. 7. Heard Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri M.K. Goyel, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has pressed this appeal only on the ground of multiplier. He has contended that the Tribunal has adopted a lesser multiplier of 10 instead of 18, as provided under the law for the age group of the deceased. In order to support his contention, he has produced before me a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs S. Rajapriya &others reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Case4s 236. 9. After having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the entire material available before me, it appears that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month which appears to be quite justified. So far as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, it appears to be on the lesser side. After going through the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it has ruled that in case, if the age of the deceased is 38 years, then the multiplier should be 12. In the present case also, the age of the deceased was 36 years, therefore, from my point of view as well as considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the multiplier of 12 will be appropriate in the instant case. The annual income of the 4 deceased comes to Rs. 48,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency of the claimants comes of Rs. 32,000/-. It this amount is calculated by the multiplier of 12, then the total dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 32,000/- X 12 = 3,84,000/-/ 10. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 3,84,000/- instead of Rs. 3,20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest as indicated in the impugned award. Rest of the amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is maintained. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 12.03.2008 ASWAL