IN THE HIGHT COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 347 of 2006 Smt. Vijaya Devi & others … Appellants Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others … Respondents Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, ACJ This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 01.05.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Chamoli in M.A.C. Case No. 34 of 2005, Smt. Vijaya Devi & others Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.2005, Mahanand was traveling in vehicle No. UA11/0263 from Maithana to Rudraprayag. When the said vehicle reached near Village Baiganu, Thana Karanprayag, the driver of the vehicle lost control over it, due to rash and negligent driving and it met with an accident. The injured persons were admitted in the Government Hospital, Karanprayag, where Mahanand was declared dead by the doctors. According to the claim petition, the deceased was 62 years of age and was getting Rs. 3,818/- per month as pension. Therefore, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 10,07,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite party No. 1 – Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal alleging therein that the 2 vehicle in question was being plied in breach of policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. 4. The opposite party No. 2 – Pradhyuman Singh – owner of the vehicle in question also filed the written statement alleging therein that on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle was having the valid and effective driving licence. He has further stated that the accident took place due to technical failure. Sri Pradeep Kumar – driver of the vehicle in question has not contested the claim petition, therefore, the case against him proceeded ex-parte. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,23,500/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, till the actual date of payment vide judgment and order dated 01.05.2006. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 7. Heard Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Sri Hemand Singh Bisht, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 3 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his argument to the aspect that the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants is based on wrong calculation. He has submitted that instead of rejecting 1/3rd out of the pension, the deceased had been receiving at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted ½ (half). 9. Learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has submitted that the wife of the deceased has been receiving the family pension after the death of the deceased, hence, the amount of compensation has been rightly awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The impugned judgment and award shows that the deceased had been receiving a sum of Rs. 3,818/- per month as pension after his retirement. The age of the deceased at the time of the death was 62 years. The deceased had been working as a Sub-Inspector in the Border Security Force. The criteria to deduct ½ (half) from the pension on the ground that the wife of the deceased has been receiving family pension appears to be erroneous. 11. It is quite clear that the deceased had been receiving a sum of Rs. 3,818/- as family pension per month, in case, 1/3rd amount is to be deducted from the aforesaid amount as personal expenses of the deceased, then the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 2,545/- and the annual dependency comes to Rs. 30,540/-. The multiplier which has been adopted by the Tribunal of ‘5’ appears to be justified and same does not require any interference. After applying the multiplier of ‘5’, the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the 4 claimants comes to Rs. 1,52,500/- (rounded) (30540 X 5) instead of Rs. 1,14,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under other different heads as Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500/- for loss of state and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of company, love and affection shall remain intact. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,62,000/-. 12. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- instead of Rs. 1,23,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. (B.C. Kandpal, ACJ) 11.02.2009 ASWAL