IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A. O. No. 648 of 2006 Smt. Usha and 3 others .. Appellants. Versus The United India Insurance Company Ltd and 4 others .. Respondents. Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for respondent No.1, United India Insurance Company Ltd. None has appeared for other respondents. Dated: 26-6-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 18-7-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/ II F.T.C., Haridwar, in MAC No. 134 of 2003. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 8-11-2003, Anand Kumar was returning Haridwar from Chandigarh in Jeep No. U.P. 07-C-3068. When the said bus reached near Chidiapur Tiraha, Truck No. DIG-3605 coming from Najibabad in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Jeep in the front side from opposite direction, due to which Anand Kumar died at the spot. According to the claimants the deceased was a hale and hearty person. His monthly income from electronic works and the agricultural work was about Rs. 4,000/-. The claimants preferred claim petition for the death of Anand Kumar. 3- The Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, owner and driver of the offending Truck filed joint written statement. They have alleged that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligence of truck but the jeep driver was 2 negligent. They also alleged that the truck at the time of accident was insured with United India Insurance Company and the driver had valid driving license. 4- Opposite Party No.3, United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the Truck No. DIG-3605, also filed written statement and alleged that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of Jeep, the driver of the Truck was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed, therefore, liability to pay compensation is upon the Oriental Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending jeep. 5- Opposite Party No.4, owner of jeep No. U.P. 07- C-3068, also filed his written statement. According to him the jeep driver was driving the jeep cautiously at slow speed and the Truck coming from opposite direction came there at a high speed and dashed the jeep on wrong side. He also alleged that the insurance papers have been lost after the accident. 6- Opposite Party No.5, Oriental Insurance Company, insurer of Jeep No. U.P. 07-C-3068 also filed written statement and alleged that wrong age of the deceased has been mentioned in the petition. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligence of the truck involved in the accident. The Insurance Company also alleged that the driver of the jeep has no valid driving license and the vehicle was not having valid registration and fitness. 7- On the pleadings of parties, the tribunal framed issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, parties, in support of their case, adduced documentary as well as oral evidence. The Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel 3 for the parties and considering the evidence on record, held that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of Truck driver and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- as compensation against United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the Truck involved in the accident. The Tribunal directed to deposit the amount within one month failing which interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable from the date of filing the petition till the actual date of payment. 8- Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this appeal, for enhancement. 9- Heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 5. None has appeared for respondents 2 to 4. 10- Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the quantum of compensation only. According to him, the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error in not taking into consideration the evidence of the claimants pertaining to the monthly income of deceased and arbitrarily and in a mechanical way calculated the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. 11- Contrary to this, learned counsel for the respondent/United India Insurance Company has opposed the submission and alleged that no cogent and reliable evidence relating to income of the deceased was brought on record, hence, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the dependency on the basis of notional income. 4 12- The Tribunal has framed issue No.4 on the quantum of compensation. In the inquest report as well as the post mortem report the age of the deceased was mentioned as 32 years. Against this, no documentary evidence was filed regarding the age, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding the age of the deceased as 32 years. As regards the income of the deceased, no documentary and other reliable evidence was produced and that was the reason that the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The finding of the tribunal in this regard is quite justified. The Tribunal made 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses and the net annual dependency was taken for Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal also adopted a multiplier of ‘17’ at the age of 32 years, thereby assessed the total dependency of Rs. 10,000/- X 10 = Rs. 1,70,000/-. I do not find any infirmity in the above calculation. The Tribunal also awarded a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- under the heads, funeral expenses, loss of estate and mental agony, to which the claimants are entitled to get. 13- For the discussion made above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 18-7-2006 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB