IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 335 of 2007 Abdul Rashid and another … Appellants Versus Mohd. Harun and another … Respondents Sri Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for appellants Sri Lalit Belwal, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: August 21, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both the parties have agreed that the matter be disposed of finally. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.06.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. 181 of 2006, Abdul Rashid and another vs. Mohd. Harun and another. Brief facts of the case as narrated in claim petition are that on 5.6.2006 the son of claimants- Irfan and his relative Afzal was going to village Tah Milak, P.S. Bhagatpur, Moradabad from village Suwavala in Barat of claimants’ son Furqan by motorcycle and when both the persons were standing at Kacchi Patri below the road in Afzalgarh Bus Stop, Jaspur in order to wait the bus of Barat, then at about 12.15 p.m. Truck No. U.P.-12H-6183 came from the rear side and dashed the motorcycle, due to which deceased-Irfan died at the spot itself 2 and Afzal was injured. The deceased was 20 years of age at the time of his death and was employed as Auto Electrician in Libya and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation against the opposite parties jointly or severally. Opposite party no. 1-Mohd. Harun, owner of offending vehicle filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been pleaded that accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of deceased. It has also been pleaded that truck in question was being driven slowly on its side. He has further pleaded that he is the registered owner of Truck No. UP-12H-6183 and this truck was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. and driving licence of driver of truck was valid and effective at the time of accident. Opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd. filed written statement denying the factum of accident. It has been pleaded that no information was given to it with regard to alleged accident. It has also been pleaded that it was the duty of owner of vehicle to produce registration, insurance paper, fitness certificate, permit and other papers relating to vehicle. It was also duty of owner of vehicle to prove this fact that driver having valid driving licence, carefully and according to traffic rules, was plying vehicle in question at the time of accident. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed following issues in the claim petition: 3 1- Whether on 5.6.2006 at about 12.15 p.m. near Balmiki Basti Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar, Afzalgarh Bus Stop, Truck No. UP-12H-6183 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver-Shahjad Ali, dashed the deceased-Irfan, due to which he died? 2- Whether at the time of accident driver of Truck No. UP-12H-6183 was not having valid and effective driving licence? 3- To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom of the parties? Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.3,35,000/-in favour of claimants, against opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd., along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 15.06.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellants-claimants have preferred the present appeal before this Court. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, leaned counsel for appellants-claimants, Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-insurance company and perused the record. 4 Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is meager and it is liable to be enhanced by this Court. As far as issue no. 1 with regard to factum of accident is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has discussed all the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has recorded a categorical finding that on 5.6.2006 at about 12.15 p.m. near Balmiki Basti Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar, Afzalgarh Bus Stop, Truck No. UP-12H-6183 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver-Shahjad Ali, dashed the motorcycle of deceased-Irfan, due to which Irfan was grievously injured and succumbed to injuries sustained by him in the accident. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and it deserves to be confirmed. As far as issue no. 2 is concerned, the insurance company has taken specific plea in its written statement that Shahjad Ali, driver of Truck No. UP-12H-6183 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, whereas opposite party no. 1-owner of truck has admitted himself to be the registered owner of said truck and pleaded in his written statement that he is the registered owner of Truck No. UP-12H-6183 and his truck was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. and driving licence of driver was also fully valid and all papers relating to said vehicle were also valid on the date of accident. The copy of driving licence of driver-Shahjad Ali (paper no. 18C/3) has been filed, which clearly shows that driving licence of driver was valid and effective w.e.f. 15.1.2006 to 5 14.1.2009, that is, it was valid and effective on the date of accident i.e. 5.6.2006. As far as issue no. 3 with regard to amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the claimants stated in the claim petition that their son deceased-Irfan was employed as Auto Electrician in Libya (abroad) and used to get Rs.15,000/- per month (according to Indian currency), out of which he used to send half of his salary i.e. Rs.7,500/- per month to the claimants. Claimant-Abdul Rashid has been produced as PW-1 and stated in his oral evidence that his son deceased-Irfan used to send Rs.7,500/- per month from Libya, in Account No. 5141 at Canara Bank, Delhi. The claimants also filed photo copy of Account No. GESB-000124723 of Canara Bank, which shows that in the said account from the year 2003 a sum of Rs.6475/- and Rs.7270/- in March, 2005 through M.T. has been depositing. The Tribunal recorded a finding that merely submission of copy of Bank Passbook does not prove this fact that salary of deceased-Irfan was Rs.15,000/- as alleged by claimants. The claimants did not produce any other reliable documentary evidence which may prove that actual monthly income of deceased was Rs.15,000/-. The claimants should have produced reliable evidence on record issued by company/firm of Libya where deceased was working, which may establish the actual income of deceased. The Tribunal itself has recorded a finding that the claimants could not produce any reliable document in order to show the actual monthly income of deceased. The Tribunal did not have any other option except to assess the average daily wages of 6 deceased, which comes to Rs.150/- per day in Libya (abroad) and Tribunal after adjusting the weekly recess etc. has assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,750/- i.e. Rs.45,000/- per annum. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd out of Rs.45,000/- towards personal expenses of deceased, has assessed the annual income of deceased-Irfan at Rs.30,000/-, which appears to be justified and needs no interference. It is an admitted case that deceased was 20 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 father of deceased was 50 years at the time of accident as per claim petition as well as his statement. The claimant-Abdul Rashid, father of deceased also filed copy of Ration Card, which also shows that his age was 50 years, on the date of accident. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal, which may discredit the authenticity of said document. The Tribunal in view of Schedule given in Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act selected the multiplier of ‘11’ and after adopting the multiplier of ‘11’ the amount of compensation has been worked out to Rs.30,000 x 11=Rs.3,30,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the claimants towards loss of love and affection of their son (deceased). Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,35,000/- as compensation to the claimants. I, therefore, am of the view that the Tribunal awarded a just and proper amount of compensation to the claimants and it needs no interference. As far as interest is concerned, in my 7 view, the same also appears to be justified and requires no interference. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 15.06.2007 is hereby confirmed. (B. C. Kandpal, J.) SP