IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINTIAL A.O. No. 164 of 2007 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Ltd. … Appellant Vs Smt. Urmila & others … Respondents Sri Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Promod Belwal, learned counsel for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, IInd, Dehradun in M.A.C.P. No. 188 of 2004, Smt. Urmila Verma & others Vs Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.08.2004, Surendra Sharma (deceased) was coming from Mussorrie to Dehradun in his Maruti Car No. UA07G/6199 along with Vijay Kumar, Deepak and Sanjay Malik. When they reached at Bagiyal Gaon Mor, a bus bearing registration No. UP07B/4708 coming from the side of Dehradun, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner hit the said car, due to which Surendra Kumar and Vijay Kumar Verma died on the spot while Deepak and Sanjay Malik was taken to the Doon Hospital. The deceased – Surendra was 27 years of age and used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month as salary. The claimants are the family members of the deceased and dependents upon the deceased. Hence, they filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 contested the claim petition by filing their written statement before the 2 Tribunal concerned alleging therein that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the car, as he lost control over the same. The bus was coming on his side on the date of accident. The owner of the Maruti Car as well as Insurer of the said case have not made the party, therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the parties. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 8.8.04 at about 05:45 p.m. near Bagiyal Gaon, Mussoorie Road, Dehradun on account of the rash and negligent driving of U.A.R.T.C. Bus No. UA07B- 4708 by its driver Sri Khadak Singh O.P. No. 2 causing injuries and ultimate death of lae Sri Sudrendra Verma? If so, its effect? 2. Whether the accident in question took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car No. UA07G/6199 by the deceased himself, as alleged in para 25 of the Written State of O.P.s No. 1 and 2? 3. Whether the claim petition is bad for non joinder of owner and insurer of Maruti Car No. UA07G/6199? 4. To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to get? If so, From which of the O.P.s? 5. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,21,600/- in favour of the claimants. 3 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation Ltd. has come up before this Court by way of this appeal. 7. Heard Sri Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Promod Belwal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 8. The Tribunal while deciding the issue relating to the rash and negligent driving, considered the evidence adduced by the parties in a great detail and thereafter held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of Maruti Car do not know how to drive the car in the hilly area, from the perusal of the record, it is clear that the driver of Maruti Car was having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Further the Tribunal has categorically recorded the finding that the deceased was having a jewelry shop at Dehradun, therefore, it cannot be said that he has no knowledge of hilly areas. The Tribunal also considered the photographs of the accident while deciding the issue relating to the rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal has rightly held responsible the driver of the bus. I do not find any illegality in finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed illegality while knowing this fact that it was a head on collusion, but the Tribunal has arbitrarily and unlawfully fastened the entire liability of compensation on the appellant, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is quite arbitrary and illegal and is against the settled principle of law and is liable to be set aside. 4 10. From the perusal of the record shows that the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, therefore, the liability of compensation was also imposed upon the appellant. The Tribunal after going through the photographs came to the conclusion that the car had slipped on the wrong side due to impact of the accident. The Tribunal has further categorically recorded the finding that the heavy vehicle should have dragged the light vehicle on its way due to accident. I do not any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. As the bus in question was being plied under the control of Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation Ltd., therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of compensation upon the appellant. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned the Tribunal has considered the paper No. 27C1 which is income tax return for the assessment year 2002-2003 in order to calculate the amount of compensation. The Tribunal has presumed that the deceased was running a jewelry shop at Dehradun at the time of this death with the help of his father. Considering this aspect, the Tribunal considered his monthly income as Rs. 4,000/- and the Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 48,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd on the same as personal expenses, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 32,000/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 27 years, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ‘16’, which appears to be justified. In this way the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 5,12,000/- (16 X 32000). The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be perfectly justified. I do not find any infirmity or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal concerned. I also do not find 5 any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 13.08.2008 ASWAL