IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 374 of 2005 Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Through its Regional Manager Owner Bus No. UP02A/4091 ... Appellant Vs 1. Smt. Preeti Devi aged about 21 years W/o Late Sri Sher Singh 2. Master Satyam (minor) S/o Late Sri Sher Singh aged about 2 years 3. Master Sagar aged about 3 years S/o Late Sri Sher Singh (minor) Both through their natural guardian Mother Smt. Preeti Devi 4. Sri Ram Singh aged about 44 years S/o Sri Chet Ram 5. Smt. Keso Devi aged about 42 years W/o Sri Ram Singh All R/o Mohalla Dilla Singh Jaspur, Police Station Jaspur Tehsil Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar presently R/o Village Dhyan Nagar Police Station Jaspur District Udham Singh Nagar ... Respondents Sri V.K. Bisht, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms Sangeeta Miyan, learned counsel for the appellant None has appeared on behalf of the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 13.05.2005 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 110 of 2002, Smt. Preeti Devi & others Vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,95,600/- as compensation in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2002 at about 06:30 p.m. Sri Sher Singh coming on his cycle from Jaspur to Dhyannagar on his side after finishing his work. When he reached at Lapakna River, suddenly a roadways bus No. UP02A/4091, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the cycle of the deceased due to which he died at the spot. According to the claimants, at the time of the accident he used to earn Rs. 150/- per day by tailoring work. It has further alleged that at the time of the accident, he was aged about 23 years, therefore, the claimants filed claim petition for Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The appellant/UPSRTC contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal concerned alleging therein that on the date of accident, the bus was being driven by its driver very slowly and cautiously. The said accident took place due to negligence of the deceased. It has further alleged that the amount of compensation is very excessive, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,95,600/- in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment vide order dated 13.5.2005. If the claimants did not receive the same amount within a period of two months, the same shall be payable @ 12% per annum. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri V.K. Bisht, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, learned counsel for the appellant, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents and perused the record. 8. In order to support their case, the claimants have produced Priti Devi as P.W.1, Abdul Gaffar as P.W.2, Rajendra Singh as P.W.3 before the Tribunal concerned. The opposite party has produced Sri Arun Kumar Gahlot – conductor of the bus as D.W.1 in support of its case. Sri Rajendra Singh (P.W.3) who was the eyewitness of the accident has stated in his statement that on the date of the accident the deceased i.e. Sher Singh was going to his home on his cycle, suddenly, the roadways bus No. UP02A/4091 hit the cycle of the deceased. On the other hand, the appellant has produced conductor of the bus – Sri Arun Singh Gahalot, who has stated in his statement that on the date of accident, he was standing in the bus and distributing the tickets. He has further stated that on 09.05.2002, the bus was running from Dhampur to Kasipur, when the bus crossed the Jaspur, then the deceased was going by the side of the bus and suddenly he moved his cycle to the back side due to which he dashed with the bus and the accident took place. Perusal of the record, it is clear that the accident took place on the said date. The Tribunal has held that the conductor of the bus was busy in distributing the tickets, therefore, the Tribunal did not rely upon the statement of the conductor. In order to support its case, the appellant has to produce the driver of the bus who was the actual eyewitness of the accident, but the appellant did not produce the drive as witness. Therefore, the Tribunal relied upon the statement of the witness produced by the claimants and held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent manner of the driver. 9. So far as the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed this point in great detail. Sri Abdul Gaffar (P.W.2) where the deceased was working as a tailor has submitted that the deceased used to earn Rs. 4200-5400 per month. It has further alleged by this witness that his shop was not registered with the Labour Department. It has come from the evidence on record that the deceased was working with Abdul Gaffar for the last two years. Therefore, the Tribunal in order to assess the income of the deceased considered him in the category of labour and taken into consideration the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 1,400/- and then annual dependency comes to Rs. 16,800/-. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 23 years. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 17 as per schedule. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,85,600/-. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and in total, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,95,600/- which appears perfectly justified. I do not find any ground at this stage to interfere in the impugned award. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards the rate of interest indicated by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal has observed that in case, if the amount of compensation is not paid within a period of tow months, the rate of interest would be 12% instead of 9%. 11. To my view the rate of interest indicated by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award as 12% appears to be quite excessive. It should be 7% instead of 12%. The impugned judgment and award to the extent of the interest indicated therein as 12% is liable to be modified. 12. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The rate of interest indicated as 12% in the impugned judgment and award is modified to 7%. Rest of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on other aspects are hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 03.04.2008 ASWAL