IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 348 of 2006 Shri Kushal …Appellant Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others ... Respondents Sri B.N. Molakhi, Advocate for the appellant Sri P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Sri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no. 3 Dated: 22-06-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 05.04.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli, in M.A.C. Case No. 39/2005, Shri Kushal versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others. The brief facts of the case, according to the claimant, are that on 11.5.2005 claimant-Kushal had gone to Badrinath through Vehicle No. U.A.07F/3820 in order to load and unload the goods and when after unloading the goods he was returning to Gopeshwar, at 11.00 p.m. near village Langsi, P.S. Joshimath, the said vehicle met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver, as a result of which claimant sustained injuries on his person and thigh of his right leg was fractured. It has also been alleged that claimant used to earn Rs.4500/- per month by working as labourer, at the time of accident. Opposite party no. 2-Mohd. Shakil is the owner of vehicle No.U.A.07F- 2 3820 and opposite party no. 3-Shakil Ali is the driver of said vehicle. At the time of accident the said vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 1- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Therefore, the claimant prayed that he might be awarded desirable amount of compensation from opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1-insurance company filed its written statement denying all the contents made in the claim petition and pleaded that at the time of alleged accident, registration certificate, insurance policy, driving licence and permit etc. relating to vehicle involved in the accident, were not valid and therefore claim petition of the claimant does not deserve to be admitted. Opposite parties no. 2 and 3 i.e. owner and driver of vehicle in question, filed their joint written statement. They have admitted the factum of occurrence of accident on the date, place and time as stated by the claimant in the claim petition. Opposite party no. 2 has stated that he is the owner of vehicle No. U.A.07F-3820 and at the time of accident vehicle in question was being driven by its driver-Shakil Ali (opposite party no. 3), who was possessing valid driving licence and the said vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 1-insurance company. It has also been alleged that at the time of accident all the papers relating to vehicle in question were valid and owner as well as driver of vehicle in question is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Therefore, claim petition filed by claimants against opposite parties no. 2 & 3 is liable to be dismissed. 3 The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues in the claim petitions, which were discussed in detail. Parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.38,335/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide impugned judgment and award dated 05.04.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-claimant has preferred the present appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Sri B.N. Molakhi, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for respondent no. 1-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for respondent no. 3-onwer of vehicle in question, and perused the record. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal has considered the entire evidence adduced before it and thereafter came to the conclusion that claimant has been fully successful in proving the fact that on 11.5.2005 at 11.00 p.m. he was travelling by Truck No. U.A.07F-3820 as a labourer and when the said vehicle reached near Langsi, it met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and fell into a ditch, in which claimant sustained injuries on his person and thigh of right leg was fractured. 4 As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, the learned Tribunal has discussed this aspect while deciding issue no. 3 in the impugned judgment and award. The claimant has stated that he spent about a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on his medical treatment of injuries sustained by him in the accident. The claimant in support of his contention also filed documentary evidence such as photocopy of medical report (paper no. 9C), medical bills (paper no. 29C/1 to 29C/7), disability certificate (paper no. 52C) and x-ray plates. The claimant has filed the bills pertaining to his medical treatment amounting to Rs.8,335/-, therefore, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to get the said amount towards expenses incurred in his medical treatment. The claimant also stated that he used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month by working as labourer, but he did not adduce any evidence, documentary or oral, with regard to his income. Therefore, under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken into account the notional income of claimant as Rs.15,000/- per annum. As per disability certificate, the age of the claimant has been taken into account as 19 years at the time of accident and disability certificate has been taken into account to the extent of 10%. Thus, after deducting a sum of 10% the annual income of the claimant is worked out to Rs.15,000 x 10%=Rs.1500/-. The claimant was 19 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, multiplier of ‘15’ as has been adopted by the Tribunal in this case, appears to be just and proper. After applying the multiplier of ‘15 in this case, the amount of 5 compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant, comes to Rs.1500 x 15=Rs.22,500/-. The claimant has also been awarded a sum of Rs.2500/- on account of fracture in his leg and Rs.5000/- towards mental pain and agony, which also appears to be justified and needs no interference. Thus, a total sum of Rs.38,335/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant. I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has adopted absolutely right method in awarding the amount of compensation. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and the same is hereby affirmed. For the reasons stated above, appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 05.04.2006 is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP