IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 460 of 2006 Smt. Shabnam and others .. Appellants. Versus National Insurance Company and another ..Respondents. Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Prabhat Pandey, Advocate for respondent No.1. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. Dated: 12-6-2008 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 10-5-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ I F.T.C./Addl. District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in MACT Case No. 63 of 2005. 2- The brief facts of the case are that on 14.3.2005 at about 2 P.M. Mohd. Arif along with his companion Amzad Hussain was going to Okhalkanda from Haldwani in a Motorcycle bearing registration No. U.A. 04-B/3950. When they reached one kilometer away from Okhalkanda, Truck No. UA 04-A/0776 came there at a high speed and dashed the Motorcycle on wrong side. Mohd. Arif sustained grievous injuries. He was being brought to Haldwani but in the way he succumbed to the injuries. According to the petitioners the deceased used to do the contract work and his monthly income was Rs. 8,000/-. The claimant filed claim petition for a compensation of Rs. 11,99,000/-. 3- The Opposite Party No.1, National Insurance Company contested the petition by filing its written statement alleging therein that the petition is bad for 2 non-joinder of owner and insurer of the offending Motorcycle. 4- The Opposite Party no.2, owner of the offending truck also filed his written statement and alleged that the driver was driving the truck with care and caution and the Motorcyclists came on wrong side in front of the truck and collided with the truck. The owner also alleged that the driver was having valid driving license and it was insured with National Insurance Company. 5- The Tribunal on the pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter parties adduced evidence in the petition. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,39,000/- against the National Insurance Company and directed to deposit the compensation within a month, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 6- Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement. 7- Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the deceased was a renowned contractor and his monthly income was Rs. 8,000/- but the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. He also submitted that the deceased has left behind him his young widow and two minor children, therefore, the compensation should be enhanced. 3 8- I do not find any force in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award reveals that the claimants did not file any income certificate to prove the income of the deceased. No paper showing that the deceased used to pay income tax was also filed. Had the deceased been earning a handsome amount, he would have certainly been paying income tax and the claimants would have easily filed on record the papers relating his income tax etc. Absence of any document filed on behalf of the claimants pertaining to the income of the deceased, points towards the reality that the deceased had no income as has been alleged by the claimants. Mere assertion of the claimants that he used to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month for their livelihood cannot be believed. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the average income of Rs. 3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly dependency was assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘18’ in the instant case. The deceased was 26 years of age and his widow is of young age and two minor children are there, therefore, the multiplier of ‘18’ is just and proper. Thus the compensation comes to Rs. 24,000/- X 18= Rs. 4,32,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium. In my opinion the amount awarded under these heads is justified. I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The claimants have no case for enhancement. 9- The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4 10- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 10-5-2006 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB