IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 56 of 2007 Satish Rai … Appellant. Versus State of Uttaranchal and another ..Respondents. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. M.C. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. With A.O. No. 44 of 2007 State of Uttaranchal and another ……… Appellants. Versus Satish Rai .. Respondent. Mr. M.C. Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State/appellants. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent. U Dated: 4-11-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Since, both the above appeals filed U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, arise out the same judgment and award dated 25-11-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in MACP No. 29/2006, Satish Rai Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2- The facts of the case in short, are that Smt. Mohani Rai wife of the claimant Satish Rai, was aged about 60 years and she was partner in M/S Indian Organic Chemical Industries, Kanpur. Her monthly income was Rs. 70,000/- and she was an income tax payee. On 9-12-2005, at about 2.00 P.M., when the claimant along with his wife Smt. Mohani Rai was standing near Collector Office, Naintial, suddenly 2 Armada Jeep bearing registration No. U.P. 02-C/5842 came there in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Smt. Mohani Rai due to which she sustained grievous injuries and when she was being carried to the Hospital, she succumbed to her injuries. The claimant filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. Thirty lacs. 3- The opposite parties contested the claim petition and alleged that the accident has taken place due to the own negligence of the deceased. The opposite parties also alleged that exorbitant amount of compensation has been claimed by the claimant. 4- On the pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, parties, in support of their contention, adduced evidence before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the opposite parties along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5- Feeling aggrieved the claimant has preferred the A.O. No. 56/2007 for enhancement of compensation, whereas the State has preferred the A.O. No. 44/2007 for setting aside the impugned award. 6- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7- Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in calculating the amount on the basis of Rs. 3,19,000/- per annum only, whereas the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 3 8,78,000/- per annum, as such the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. 8- On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the deceased met with accident with her own negligence. No reliable evidence pertaining to accident has been adduced by the claimant, therefore, the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in holding liable the State and its department to pay compensation. He also submitted that the claimant was not dependent upon the deceased, therefore, no amount of compensation should be awarded to him. 9- From perusal of record it reveals that on the day of accident, i.e. 9-12-2005 the deceased along with her husband claimant Satish Rai had come to Registrar Office, Nainital, in connection with registration of some land. P.W.1, Satish Rai has admitted in his cross- examination that he had not seen the accident with his own eyes and he had heard about the rash and negligence of the jeep driver from the persons assembled at the spot. P.W.2, Vishal Chandra is the eyewitness of the accident. He has specifically stated in his statement that on 9-12-2005 at about 2 P.M. he was standing at the junction of three roads near D.M. Office Nainital. A woman was also standing there. Suddenly, Armada Jeep No. U.P. 02-C/ 5842, came there at a high speed and dashed the woman standing at the corner of the road due to which she was wounded and was brought to Malli Tal Hospital, where the doctors declared her dead. This witness has specifically deposed that the jeep was driven suddenly without giving horn and signal. The driver of the offending jeep has been produced as Raghubar Dutt Joshi, D.W.1. Although this witness has deposed that 4 the accident was occurred due to own fault of the deceased, but at the same time he has admitted that at the place of the accident there is spacious road. He also admitted that he was released on bail by the C.J.M. in connection with causing the accident. It has also come in evidence that after completing the investigation the police has submitted charge sheet against the driver of the offending jeep. Copy of the charge sheet paper No. 15-C/5 has been filed on record. In the above facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue No.1, relating to rash and negligence of the driver, in favour of the claimant and against the opposite parties. 10- So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant has filed copy of I.T. Saral Form, in which the annual income of the deceased has been noted as Rs. 8,78,000/- and the tax paid by her is shown as Rs. 2,40,000/- and after deducting this amount the total annual income comes to Rs. 6,38,000/-. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the claimant and deceased had no dependency of their major children, hence the division of above income among the husband and wife would be justified in order to assess the compensation and accordingly the tribunal has taken half amount, i.e. Rs. U6,38,000/- U = Rs. 3,19,000/- and 2 after deducting 1/3Prd P towards the personal expenses of the deceased, has taken the annual dependency of the claimant at Rs. 2,12,000/- and rounded to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The deceased at the time of her death was 62 years, therefore, the tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘5’ as per the second schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the total dependency of the claimant upon the deceased 5 comes to Rs. 2,00,000/- X 5= Rs. 10,00,000/-. The claimant in his cross-examination has admitted that he is also one of the partners of the firm where the deceased was a partner. In the above facts and circumstances of the case the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal cannot be said to be on lesser side. The tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. In my opinion the tribunal has awarded a reasonable amount towards the compensation and the same does not require any interference. 11- For the reasons stated above, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 12- Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. The Impugned judgment and award dated 25-11-2006 is hereby confirmed. 13- The statutory amount of compensation deposited with this court be remitted to the tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 6