IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 333 of 2008 (Old No.320 of 1998) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Smt. Sangrami alias Jubeda Begum & others ... Respondents Sri Manish Dalakoti, holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for appellant Sri B.S. Negi, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3 Dated: September 17, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by appellant- United India Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 11.3.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tehri Garhwal in Motor Accident Claim No. 15 of 1994, Smt. Sangrami alias Jubeda Begum & others versus Sri Ravindra Singh Bisht & others. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, before Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation in lieu of death of deceased-Sri Jabbar Khan in an accident occurred on 21.8.1993 at about 8.15 p.m., 2 kilometers before Gadugad Bhaldiana within the limits of police outpost Dobata, P.S. Tehri by DCM Toyota Truck No. UGU-8829 driven by its driver rashly and negligently with the allegations that deceased Sri Jabbar Khan had loaded his 63 goats over the said truck from Chamba to Uttarkashi on 2 21.8.1993. Due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck by its driver, the truck fell down in the Khud 2 kilometers before Bhaldiana at Gadugad resulting the death of Sri Jabbar Khan and conductor at the spot and death of 47 goats at the spot. It has also been alleged that the age of deceased was 25 years at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from his mutton shop. Opposite party no. 1-Sri Ravindra Singh Bisht has filed his written statement denying all the allegations of claim petition, admitting the factum of accident. It is admitted that opposite party no. 3 was driving the said truck on the said date and time of the accident. On the day of accident, the truck was insured with opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., hence the liability of the payment of compensation, if any, shall be of the said insurance company. The insurance policy of the said truck was valid on the said date of occurrence. Claimants are entitled to get any kind of compensation from the contesting opposite party, hence the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. Opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has also filed its written statement denying all the allegations of claim petition stating that the deceased was not boarded at the said truck as the owner of the goats but he was travelling in the said truck as passenger, hence the liability of payment of compensation, if any, shall be of the owner of the truck, but not of this contesting opposite party. It is also stated that the said truck was insured with it only for the death of driver or conductor or for any 3 other loss as against third party. The monthly income of the deceased is shown very excessive and the compensation claimed is also very excessive. The age of the deceased was not less than 40 years hence the claim petition of the claimants deserves to be dismissed. The opposite party no. 3 has not filed any written statement, hence the case against him proceeded exparte. 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 entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.5,80,610/- in favour of claimants, against opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vide judgment and award dated 11.03.1998. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 11.03.1998, the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present appeal before this Court. Heard Sri Manish Dalakoti, holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for appellant i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has fell in error in 4 imposing the liability on the appellant for payment of compensation to the claimants as driver of vehicle in question had no valid driving licence at the time of accident as per the conditions of insurance policy. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed all the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has recorded a categorical finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle belonging to respondent no. 1 by its driver. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. The Tribunal has further held that driver of the said truck as stated by owner of the truck, was not driving the said truck at the time of the accident, but some other person was driving the said truck at the time of accident, even then the insurance company is liable to make payment of compensation on structured formula basis on the basis of II Schedule of the M.V. Act keeping in view the provisions of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, the truck in question being insured with it. I do not find any illegality in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and the same deserves to be confirmed. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the record reveals that the age of deceased-Jabbar Khan was 25 years as is clear from his post mortem report and he used to give a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to his wife for the maintenance of the family. The Tribunal keeping in view the age of deceased selected the multiplier of ‘17’ and in case, if the 5 multiplier of ‘17’ is adopted in the present case, the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants comes to Rs.8,16,000/-. After deducting one-third out of the said amount towards personal expenses of deceased, the annual financial dependency of claimants has been worked out to Rs.5,44,000/-, which appears to be justified and needs no interference. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, which appears to be justified. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, which again appears to be justified. Apart from it, Rs.29,610/- has also been awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants regarding the death of 47 goats, which appears to be justified. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,80,610/- as compensation to the claimants, which appears to be a just and reasonable amount of compensation and it does not require any interference by this Court. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. 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 herby confirmed. The statutory amount deposited with this Court by the appellant be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 6