IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO.No. 173 of 2003. Date of Decision: 6.4.2011. _______________________________________________ Oriental Insurance Company. ….Appellant. Versus. Dharam Singh and others. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the petitioner :Mr.Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 4. :Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This appeal arises out of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi. The learned Tribunal on the consideration of the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,14,000/- which included Rs.30,000/- as the value of the goods being carried in the accidented vehicle. This aspect of the case need not detain this court any further as by judgment of the Full Court in FAO. No.97 of 1999 and FAO. No. 202 of 1999 decided 6.1.2010 held: “In view of the above discussion, we answer both the questions posed to us in the following terms: Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 1. The phrase “Any property of a third party” occurring in Sections 147 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act will mean property which is outside the goods vehicle and not being carried in the goods vehicle. 2. The second question is answered by holding that the goods of a consignor/consignee being carried in a goods vehicle cannot be termed to be property of a third party. The appeal(s) may now be listed before a learned Single Judge for decision in accordance with law.” Since the goods were being carried in the vehicle which met with the accident, the award of Rs.30,000/- cannot be sustained and it is held accordingly. The second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that the driver of the vehicle Sh. Bhagat Ram was not possessed of a valid driving license. Learned counsel submits that the statement of RW4 Hans Raj is conclusive on this aspect. This witness stated that the endorsement on the driving license Ext.DB, authorizing the driver Bhagat Ram to drive heavy transport vehicle has not been entered in the register maintained by the Authority. I cannot accept this submission for the reason that in cross-examination, this witness states that there are two Licensing Authorities in Shimla and this witness is unable to say anything about the endorsement Exts.PW4/A and PW4/B authorizing the petitioner to drive heavy transport vehicle having been made by the other authority with whom this witness is not working nor familiar with the record. According to him, this endorsement could have been made by the other Licensing Authority functioning in Shimla. He also says that he cannot identify the stamp Ext.DB of the Licensing Authority where he is posted. This evidence has rightly prompted the learned Tribunal to hold that it does not 3 conclusively establish that the driver was not possessed of a valid driving license. I have seen Ext.DB and do find that it has been endorsed by the Licensing Authority authorizing the petitioner to drive heavy transport vehicle. There is thus no force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the same is accordingly rejected. Cross Objection No. 367 of 2003. The basic grievance of the cross-objector is that wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel refers to the Schedule of the Act which provides that in case the deceased is above 50 years but not exceeding 55 years, the multiplier to be used is 11. Learned counsel also urges that the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/- per month and that which is against the law settled by the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2001 ACJ 1735 and Arun Kumar Agarwal and another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2010 ACJ 2161. On the aspect of the multiplier, there is no dispute that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal which is 7 cannot be sustained and that multiplier of 11 should be applied as provided for in the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. In this case, it is established on record that the deceased was, in fact, aged about 55 years. On the question of income also, what I find from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa’s case (supra) that the income even if considered notionally would work out to be Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the court was assessing the notional income of a house wife as a contribution to the family. In the present case, the deceased was 4 carrying on business of shopkeeper and obviously his income would be more. In these circumstances, the cross objections are partly allowed. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that: (a) A sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal for loss of goods is set aside and cannot be sustained. However, the claimants would be free to pursue this claim in accordance with law if so permitted under the law. (b) The multiplier of 7 used by the learned Tribunal is set aside and instead a multiplier of 11 is directed to be applied and the income is also increased from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. In these circumstances, the dependency would work out to Rs.1500/- per month. The total amount to be awarded would be Rs.1500x12x11= Rs.1,98,000/-. The award is modified accordingly. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. If any amount has been paid under the award that would naturally be deducted from this amount which has been awarded. So also, if the amount has been deposited as directed by the Tribunal, then interest will be payable only on the amount as increased by this Court. Cross objection disposed of accordingly. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. April 6, 2011(R) 5