IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 54 of 2004 Rajendra Kumar Goyal …… Appellant. Versus Ram Pal Singh and 4 others … Respondents. Mr. Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for claimants/respondents. None has appeared for respondent No.5. Dated: 1-7-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 1-11-2003, passed by M.A.C.T./Addl. District Judge/IV F.T.C., Haridwar, in MACT Case No. 22 of 2001. 2- The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as per the petition, are that on 28-9-2000, at about 9 A.M. Ram Pal Singh along with his wife Smt. Kaushal Devi was going on foot to his house Shivalik Nagar, Sector 6, BHEL Dispensary. When they were crossing the Chinmay Degree College Gate, Swaraj Tractor, bearing registration No. 735 came there in a high speed and dashed Smt. Kaushal Devi from behind, due to which she sustained grievous injuries. Ram Pal Singh also sustained injuries in the accident. They were rushed to BHEL Hospital where Smt. Kaushal was declared dead. She used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month from the sewing and knitting work. Therefore petition was filed for compensation. 3- The Opposite Party No.1, is the proprietor of M/S Bharat Krishi Kendra and used to sell tractors. Opposite Party No.2 is a driver and used to drive the tractors before sale. At the time of accident he was 2 driving the tractor. According to the opposite parties the driver was driving the tractor at a moderate speed of 10- 15 kilometers per hour. When the tractor reached near Chinmay Degree College Moar, an overloaded bus came there from front side. The driver of the tractor tried to save the bus and suddenly the deceased came in front of the tractor and met with accident. According to Opposite Parties the accident had occurred due to own negligence of the deceased. 4- The learned Tribunal framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, the claimants adduced evidence in support of his case. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- as compensation payable by opposite party No.1. along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the actual date of payment. 5- Feeling aggrieved the Opposite Party No.1 Rajendra Kumar Goyal, has preferred this appeal. 6- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has recorded a wrong finding of negligence on the part of the tractor driver involved in the accident. He also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. The Tribunal also fell in error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. 8- I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is 3 admitted to the parties that Smt. Kaushal sustained injuries in the accident caused by the tractor. The assertion of the respondents is that the deceased herself was negligent as he had suddenly come in front of the tractor and dashed with it. But the allegation of the claimants is that the tractor driver dashed her in a negligent manner from behind. Ram Pal Singh P.W.1, is the eyewitness of the accident. He was moving along with the deceased. This witness has specifically stated that the tractor was not bearing any registration number, it was being driven by Opposite Party No.2, Sitab Singh. He came there at a high speed and negligently dashed his wife from behind. The driver was caught at the spot by the people assembled at the spot. He has further stated that they were moving on their side away from the road. He further alleged that at the spot there was no any bus from back side or from the front side. From the side of opposite parties no evidence was adduced to rebut the on oath statement of P.W.1, Ram Pal Singh. Even the driver of the tractor has not been produced. In the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the tractor involved in the accident. 9- So far as the other part of submission of learned counsel for the appellants regarding assessing the compensation on notional income, is concerned, the same also falls on the ground. Although the claimants in the claim petition and in the evidence adduced before the court, has submitted that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month from sewing and knitting work, but no income certificate or independent reliable evidence has been produced in support of the aforesaid income. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in assessing 4 the dependency of the claimants on the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The Tribunal made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and took Rs. 10,000/- per annum as net loss suffered by the claimants. The deceased at the time of accident was 35 years of age and the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ‘16’, thereby computing the total dependency of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium. In my opinion the claimants are entitled to get the aforesaid amounts. 10- For the reasons recorded above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 1-11-2003 stands confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB