IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 375 of 2008 Smt. Khatija & others … Appellants Vs U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation & another … Respondents Sri Narrendra Bali, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Ramji Sriastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 03.07.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar in M.A.C.P. No. 20 of 2007. 2. The appellants are the claimants prayed for a compensation for a sum of Rs. 28.00 lacs in respect of death of Sri Aslam who died in a road accident that took place on 19.01.2007. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and after finding that the driver of the U.P. Transport Corporation was negligent; passed an award for a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/-. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement before this Court. 3. Heard Sri Narrendra Bali, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ramji Sriastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the point of admission and perused the record. 4. As the appeals have been preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of the amount of compensation, therefore, the only point to be discussed in this 2 appeal is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be held to be justified or not. 5. I have perused the entire judgment and order passed by the Tribunal concerned. The Tribunal has discussed each and every point in great detail. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus in question. After having perused the evidence available on record, I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income on the basis of notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum as the claimants could not produce any cogent and reliable evidence pertaining to the salary of the deceased. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased has rightly adopted the multiplier of ‘12’. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and after going through the material available on record before me, I do not find any infirmity or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and award. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, in the eye of law. I also do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.06.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 375 of 2008 3 Smt. Khatija & others … Appellants Vs U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation & another … Respondents Sri Narrendra Bali, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Ramji Sriastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 03.07.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar in M.A.C.P. No. 20 of 2007. 2. The appellants are the claimants prayed for a compensation for a sum of Rs. 28.00 lacs in respect of death of Sri Aslam who died in a road accident that took place on 19.01.2007. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and after finding that the driver of the U.P. Transport Corporation was negligent; passed an award for a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/-. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement before this Court. 3. Heard Sri Narrendra Bali, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ramji Sriastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the point of admission and perused the record. 4. As the appeals have been preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of the amount of compensation, therefore, the only point to be discussed in this appeal is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be held to be justified or not. 4 5. I have perused the entire judgment and order passed by the Tribunal concerned. The Tribunal has discussed each and every point in great detail. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus in question. After having perused the evidence available on record, I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income on the basis of notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum as the claimants could not produce any cogent and reliable evidence pertaining to the salary of the deceased. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased has rightly adopted the multiplier of ‘12’. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and after going through the material available on record before me, I do not find any infirmity or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and award. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, in the eye of law. I also do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.06.2009 ASWAL