IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 312 of 2006 Smt. Ganga Devi & others ….Appellants Versus Amar Singh Negi & others ….Respondents Sri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate, for appellants Sri Deepak Rawat, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Dated: April 28, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 28.04.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli, in M.A.C.C. No. 64 of 2005, Smt. Ganga Devi & others vs. Amar Singh & others. The claimants-Smt. Ganga Devi & others filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for grant of compensation, in lieu of death of deceased-Kanvar Singh in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants, on 27.06.2005 deceased-Kanvar Singh was traveling by Maruti Car 800 bearing Registration No. D.L. –2 C.E. –0102 from Karnaprayag to Kimoli (Nainisain). When the said vehicle reached near Chailchaura, under the limits of Patwari Circle Kankhul at about 8.00 p.m., it met with an accident due to rash and negligence driving by its driver, on account of which deceased-Kanvar Singh died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The post mortem of deceased was held at District Hospital, Gopeshwar. The claimants have pleaded that at the time of accident the deceased was 22 years of age and used to earn Rs. 8000/- per month from the contract of electric fitting and tent house. The claimants have also pleaded that opposite party no. 1- Amar Singh Negi was the owner of offending vehicle, opposite party no. 2- Raghubir Singh was the driver of offending vehicle and opposite party no. 3- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was the insurer of offending vehicle. The claimants thus claimed compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite party no. 1- Amar Singh Negi, owner of vehicle filed written statement admitting therein the factum of date, place and time of accident. He has also admitted that at the time of accident he was the owner of offending vehicle, which was being plied by opposite party no. 2- Raghubir Singh having valid driving licence and vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 3- insurance company. He has also pleaded that offending Maruti Car was having all valid papers. He has further pleaded that accident occurred due to mechanical fault, hence, the claim petition filed by claimants was liable to be dismissed. The opposite party no. 2-Raghubir Singh, driver of offending vehicle also filed written statement admitting therein the factum of date, place and time of accident. He has also pleaded that he was plying the vehicle on 27.06.2005 i.e. date of occurrence and accident took place due to mechanical fault. He has further pleaded that he having valid driving licence was plying the vehicle carefully. Therefore, the claim petition filed by claimants was liable to be dismissed. The opposite party no.3-insurance company filed its written statement refuting the contents of claim petition. It has pleaded that at the time of alleged accident, registration certificate, insurance policy, driving certificate, permit etc. relating to offending vehicle were not valid, hence, the claim petition filed by claimants is liable to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the material available before it and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition, against the opposite party no. 3-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, for a sum of Rs. 1,46,000/- as compensation, in favour of claimants, along with an interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. The Tribunal also directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid by opposite party no. 3-insurance company within a period of one and half months from the date of judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants-claimants have preferred the appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the amount of compensation and awarded a meager sum of compensation and the same should be enhanced by this Court. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. The evidence on record shows that claimants have stated that on 27.06.2005 deceased- Kanvar Singh was travelling by Maruti Car 800 bearing Registration No. D.L.-2 C.E. –0102 from Karnaprayag to Kimoli (Nainisain). When the said vehicle reached near Chailchaura, under the limits of Patwari Circle Kankhul at about 8.00 p.m., it met with an accident due to rash and negligence driving by its driver, on account of which deceased-Kanvar Singh died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants in support of their case filed original copy of Chik Report (paper no. 10-Ga), original copy of Panchayatnama (paper no. 11-Ga) and original copy of post mortem report (paper no. 12-Ga). The opposite parties have admitted in their written statements the factum of date, place and time of accident. They have also stated in their deposition that deceased-Kanvar Singh died in the said accident. Claimants have stated in their deposition that accident occurred due to rash and negligence of driver-Raghubir Singh. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have stated in their written statements as well as in their deposition that accident occurred due to mechanical fault in Maruti Car No. D.L. 2- C/E-0102, but have failed to adduce any evidence in this regard. The learned Tribunal after having considered the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligence of driver of offending Maruti Car No. D.L.-2 C/E-0102, due to which deceased- Kanvar Singh died. I do not find any reason to disturb the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, it is an admitted case that deceased was 22 years of age and was unmarried at the time of accident and therefore for calculating the amount of compensation the age of the parents would be material. In the instant case the age of parents of the deceased were shown in claim petition as 58 years and 53 years respectively, but claimants filed copy of Parivar Register (paper no. 13-Ga), which proves that at the time of accident age of father of deceased was 60 years and age of mother of deceased was 53 years respectively. As regards income of deceased at the time of accident, the claimants have come up with the case that the deceased had been earning Rs. 8000/- per month from the contract of electric fitting and tent house, but no evidence has been adduced by the claimants in this regard. In case, if no evidence could be adduced by the claimants in order to show the actual income of the deceased, then the formula of notional income would certainly be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this way, in the instant case the total income of the deceased comes to Rs. 3000 x 12= Rs. 36, 000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd out of it towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. Keeping in view the age of the parents as well as financial dependency of brothers and sisters of deceased, multiplier of ‘6’ as has been adopted by the Tribunal appears to be just and adequate and after adopting the multiplier of ‘6’, the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000 X 6= Rs. 1,44,000/- and the Tribunal also awarded Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and in this way, the Tribunal awarded total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,46,000/-, which appears to be just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference. The interest as has been indicated in the award also does not require any interference. In view of above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP