AO NO. 265 OF 2005 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Misc. Application No. 202 of 2008) Heard Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant on the misc. application and perused the record. This appeal has been finally decided by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2007, therefore, the statutory amount which has been deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. The Misc. application is disposed of accordingly. (B.C.K., J.) 12.03.2008 ASWAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 265 of 2005 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation through Regional Manager, Regional Office Tallital, Nainital District Nainital … Appellant Vs. 1. Smt. Vimla Arya, Widow of Late Prem Lal 2. Sunil S/o Late Prem Lal 3. Km. Punam D/o Late Prem Lal 4. Km. Dibya D/o Late Prem Lal 5. Km. Anjali D/o Late Prem Lal 6. Mr. Lokesh, S/o Late Prem Lal All are minor through their Natural guardian and all are R/o Village Gothani P.O. Gediya District Nainital … Respondents Sri A.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the respondents Coram: Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble, Dharam Veer, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 28.01.2005 passed by the Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge/IInd Fast Track Court, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 77 of 2004 between Smt. Vimla Arya & others Vs Regional Manager, Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, Nainital whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 9,85,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2004 at 06:30 the deceased Prem Lal after completing his duty going to his house from Nainital. He was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. UP03/4140 from Nainital, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The bus was running under the Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation Ltd. When the bus reached near Baldiakhan, the driver of the bus lost control over the bus due to which if fell into a ditch, due to which the deceased – Prem Lal died at the spot along with other passengers. At the time of the accident, the deceased was working in the Bank of Baroda, Mallital, Nainital as a Peon. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 45 years and he used to earn Rs. 9,363/- per month as salary. Therefore, the claimants/appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal concerned for Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The Uttaranchal Transport Corporation – owner of the bus, contested the claim and denied the allegations made in the claim petition and also alleged that the Corporation was not liable to pay any compensation on the ground that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the said accident. According to the Corporation, the said accident took place due to another vehicle, which was coming on the wrong direction. When the driver of the bus turned the bus on his right side in order to save that vehicle, it fell into the ditch due to which all the passengers as well as driver of the bus died at the spot. 4. After considering the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which are discussed in great detail. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after pursuing the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 9,85,000/- vide judgment and award dated 28.01.2005 in favour of the claimants against the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri A.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not argued on the point of the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the question of monthly income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on a very higher side. 8. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has discussed each and every point in great detail. We are also in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal concerned. The Tribunal has considered the statement made by Smt. Vimla Arya who has stated in her statement that her husband – Sri Prem Lal Arya died in the said accident and produced documents relating to the monthly income of his husband. On the other hand, D.W. 1 – M.D. Kotwal, conductor of the bus has stated in her statement, who was the only eyewitness of the incident. He has stated that the driver of the said bus applied emergency brake but it did not work. It was further alleged that the accident tool place, when suddenly a light vehicle came on the wrong side of the road, the driver in order to save that vehicle turned the vehicle on his right side due to which accident took place. It is apparent from the perusal of the statement made by D.W.1, Sri M.D. Kotwal that there was a ‘U’ turn but suddenly when another vehicle came on the wrong direction, the driver of the bus wanted to save that vehicle, turned the bus on his right side due to which it fell into a ditch. 9. Therefore, in our opinion, the tribunal has rightly recorded the findings that when there was a ‘U’ turn, the driver should have to move the vehicle slowly to his left side but due to negligence on the part of the driver, he turned the bus on his right side. Hence, on default of the driver, the said accident took place. 10. So far as the award of compensation is concerned, on the basis of the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to Rs. 9,300/-. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 45 years and working as Peon in Bank of Baroda at Nainital. Smt. Vimla Arya produced the salary certificate of the deceased which is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is very high. Keeping in view the age and income of the deceased in the case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Kalpana & others reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court 514, we are of the opinion that the multiplier of ‘10’ in this case would be just and reasonable. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra), we are of the view that the claimants would be entitled to get multiplier of 10 which appears to be sufficient. At the time of the accident, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 9,300/- and his annual income comes to Rs. 1,11,600/-. If he would spend one third on himself as personal expenses, then his annual income comes to Rs. 74,400/- and after adopting the multiplier of 10 its comes to Rs. 7,44,000/-. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 28.01.2005 is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 7,44,000/- from the appellant along with 7% interest from the date of filing the claim petition. Out of the awarded amount, Rs. 2,00,000/- would be given to the claimant No. 1 – Smt. Vimla Arya and rest of the amount would be deposited in equal ratio in a fixed deposit in favour of the respondent No.2 to 5 till they attain the age of adulthood. 13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation is partly allowed. (Dharam Veer, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 04.07.2007 ASWAL