IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 436 of 2006 Smt. Satweeri Devi & others … Appellants Vs Sri Ajay Sethi & another … Respondents Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants Sri Lalit Miglani, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 12.12.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/1st Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 204 of 2003, Satweeri Devi & others Vs Ajay Sethi & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.06.2003 at about 11:00 a.m., the deceased – Omveer Singh was going on his motorcycle towards the place Mahtosh for his official work and when the deceased reached near Khalasa (Dhaba), a truck bearing registration No. UP07A/7025 which was going forward, immediately stopped the same without any indication and the drive of the vehicle, opened the driving door without seeing backside and the said driving door caused hurt to the deceased who was coming behind the truck by is motorcycle. The report of the accident was lodged at the police station concerned. The claimant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased and claimant Nos. 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. They were dependent upon the deceased. At the time of accident, the deceased was 45 years of age and used to earn Rs. 11,000/- per month as salary. He was working on the post of 2 Head Constable in the Uttaranchal Police. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite party No. 1 – Ajay Sathi, the owner of the Truck contested the claim petition by filing written statement alleging therein that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The driver of the truck – Virnendra Singh was driving the said truck very cautiously and slowly and when he stopped the truck, the deceased came there and at that time the deceased was driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently and hit the truck and fell down there. At the time of the accident, the driver of the truck was possessed all relevant papers relating to the said vehicle and the driver of the truck was having the valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle was insured with opposite party No. 2, therefore, if any liability arises for payment of the compensation, it is of the opposite party No. 2. 4. The opposite party No. 2 – United India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement alleging therein that the amount claimed by the claimants is very exorbitant. It has further alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It has also pleaded that on the date of accident, the driver of the truck was not duly licened and there was no valid R.C., Route Permit, Fitness certificate etc. issued in favour of the vehicle in question. Hence the claim petition is not maintainable. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in 3 support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 9,59,380/- which shall be payable within a period of one month failing which the same shall be paid along with interest @ 6% per annum vide judgment and award dated 12.12.2005. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants/appellants has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancing the amount of compensation. 7. Heard Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Lalit Miglani, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed this appeal only on the point of multiplier as well as interest part. He has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of ‘13’. He has submitted that according to the schedule the multiplier for the age group of 40 to 45 years must be taken as ‘15’ while the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 45 years and in spite of that the Tribunal adopted the multiplier as well as interest on the lesser side. 9. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of ‘13’ as the deceased was 45 years of age. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased has rightly adopted the multiplier of ‘13’ which is just and proper. 4 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, I don’t find any force in this appeal. The appellants have filed salary certificate which is Paper No. 47C. From the perusal of salary certificate filed by the claimants, it reveals that Rs. 9,883/- as the income of the deceased in the month of June, 2003. It is admitted fact that the deceased was the government servant and he was earning Rs. 6,025/- as Basic Pay, Rs. 3,133/- as D.A., Rs. 725/- as allowances. The money of Rs. 725/- received as allowances cannot be considered as salary. Hence, the Tribunal in order to calculate the compensation assessed Rs. 9,158/- per month as salary and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, then the same comes to Rs. 6,105.34/-. In this way, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 73,260/-. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 45 years adopted the multiplier of ‘13’ which appears to be justified. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 9,52,380/-. Apart from the amount of compensation, the Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards general expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, in total the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 9,59,380/- as compensation, which appears to be just and proper. I am in total agreement with the impugned judgment and award. The amount of compensation needs no interference. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further invited my attention towards the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. He has submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lesser side. 5 12. I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, as far as the rate of interest is concerned, the interest, as awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. 13. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal concerned is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27.08.2008 ASWAL