IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO No.83 of 2009. Date of decision : 02.04.2009. United India Insurance Co. …Appellant. Versus Smt.Gadoli Devi and Others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr.Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu. The claimants are the wife, child and mother of the deceased Lalit Kumar who died in an accident near village Kalehli, Post Office Bajaura, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. On the fateful day he was driving his scooter when he was hit by motorcycle driven by respondent No.4 Ram Lubhaya. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was 36 years of age and was earning about Rs.9000/- per month by working as carpenter and selling vegetables. Another sum of Rs.50,000/- was also 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 claimed on account of treatment of medicine etc. The total amount claimed as compensation was Rs.ten lacs. The respondents including the Insurance Company, as usual, resisted the claim on a number of grounds. The appellant herein pleaded that respondent No.4 Ram Lubhaya was not possessed of a valid driving licence and the motorcycle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and that the petition was filed in collusion with respondent No.4. On the two issues namely, “(i) as to whether the deceased died as a result of an accident which was occurred on 19.10.2007 due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4 and (ii) whether the claimants are entitled to the amount claimed and if so from whom,” the learned Tribunal held that the deceased had in-fact sustained serious fatal injuries in the accident which was the result of the rash and negligent act of respondent No.4. He was first treated at two hospitals in Kullu, and referred for treatment at PGI, Chandigarh, where he died on the next day. On the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal concluded and rightly so that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent act of respondent No.4. On the quantum, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month and not Rs.6000/- per month as claimed. He was 36 years of age at the time of his accident. He was survived by 3 his widow, a minor daughter and old mother. The learned Tribunal then holds that the deceased would be spending 1/4th of his income on himself which would leave his assessed income at Rs.3000/- per month or Rs.36,000/- a year. A multiplier of 16 has been applied and the claim assessed at Rs.5,76,000/- which was awarded. On the issues, onus of which was on the appellant-Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal held that Ex.RB, driving licence, was valid and there is no evidence to establish that it was not so. There was also no evidence on the record to show or establish as to whether the motorcycle was being driven by respondent No.4 in contravention of the terms of the Insurance Policy as pleaded. The claim petition was, therefore, allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record. On the question that the learned Tribunal had not acted in accordance with law by refusing the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as filed by the Insurance Company, I find that no such application has been filed on the record. This submission, therefore, cannot be accepted. On the aspect of as to whether the compensation granted is excessive, all that I need to say is that the dependency has been calculated at 3000/- rupees per month which is the barest minimum even assuming that 4 the appellant was not doing the work of carpentry and selling vegetables and performing only domestic chores. (See: Lata Wadhwa & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others, (2001)8 SCC 197). The multiplier is also not on the higher side considering that the age of the deceased was 36 years and that he was in the prime of his life. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any force in this appeal which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. April 2, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.