IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 120/2004 Ram Swaroop Rawat and another ….. Appellants. Versus Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Addl. District Judge/IInd Fast Track Court Dehradun and others …….. Respondents. Sri Shivam Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ Oriental Ins. Co. Dated: 30-12-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been preferred by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 23-3-2004, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/IInd F.T.C., Dehradun, in MACT Case No. 91/2002, Ram Swaroop and another vs. Smt. Meenu Begum and others. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 20-3-2002, Vikas Rawat, son of the claimants, was going to Rajpur from Dharampur riding in his Motorcycle bearing registration No. U.P. 07-7685. When he reached near Uttaranchal C.T. Scan Center situated at Aaraghar, Tata Sumo No. U.A. 07-4702 came there in a high speed and dashed the Motorcycle on wrong side due to which Vikas Rawat sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in C.M.I. Hospital, Dehradun for his treatment. Thereafter he was shifted to Apollo Hospital New Delhi where he spent about Rs. 2,45,000/- on his treatment. Ultimately he succumbed to the injuries on 31.3.2002. According to 2 the claimants the deceased at the time of his death was 27 years of age and he was working as Assistant Manager in S.B.I. Branch Ranipur and his monthly salary was Rs. 13,437/-. Therefore the claimants filed claim petition in lieu of death of deceased. 3- The opposite party No.1, owner of the offending Tata Sumo U.P. 07-7685 did not contest the petition inspite of sufficient service therefore the claim petition was heard exparte against her. 4- The opposite party no.2, Oriental Insurance Company contested the claim petition before the tribunal and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. According to the insurer the Tata Sumo did not involve in the accident. Further plea was taken that the petition was bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Motorcycle involved in the accident and the motorcyclist was not having valid driving license. It was also pleaded that the claimants were not dependent upon the deceased, therefore, they are not entitled to get any compensation. 5- The opposite party no.3, driver of the offending Tata Sumo also filed his written statement and alleged that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligence of the motorcyclist as he was driving the motorcycle at a high speed. He further alleged that at the time of accident the Tata Sumo was insured with Oriental Insurance Company and he was having valid and effective driving license. 6- The Tribunal on the pleading of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter parties led evidence in support of their claim. The learned 3 Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, decreed the claim petition against the Oriental Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 54,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 7- Feeling aggrieved the claimants have preferred this appeal before this court for enhancement of compensation. 8- Heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants as well as the counsel for the insurance company/respondent No.3 and perused the record. 9- Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has submitted that the tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation and the same should be enhanced in appeal. 10- The only point to be seen in this appeal is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is on lesser side or is it a reasonable amount. From perusal of record it reveals that the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 54,500/- as compensation in lieu of death of deceased Vikas Rawat, which appears to be erroneous. The tribunal has based its finding on the ground that the father of the deceased was in employment at the time of accident and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 12,400/- per month. Therefore, he was not financially dependent upon the deceased. It is not disputed that the mother of the deceased is a house-hold lady. In any case it cannot be ignored that the claimants have lost the life of their son, who was aged about 27 4 years at the time of the accident. The deceased had been working as Assistant Manager in the State Bank of India, Ranipur, Haridwar. It is natural that the deceased must have been providing some financial assistance to his parents. It is not a question that the parents were not financially dependent upon the deceased but in case if the deceased had been working as an Assistant Manager in State Bank of India and has not been married, even then he should have been providing financial assistance to his parents. I am of the view that the amount awarded to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 54,500/- is certainly on lesser side. To my mind the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants should have been at least Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/-. 11- The tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- under the head of loss of estate. In my opinion the claimants are entitled to get these amounts besides the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded towards financial loss to the parents. In this way the total compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants comes to Rs. 1,50,000/-+ Rs. 2,000/-+ Rs. 2,500/-= 1,54,500/- along with interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award. 12- For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 13- Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 23-3-2004 is modified upto the extent that the claimants/appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,54,500/- as compensation from the Oriental Insurance Company, along with the interest indicated in the impugned award, 5 instead of Rs. 54,500/- as has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. ( B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 6