IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL. A.O. NO. 513 OF 2005 Smt. Sukhwant Kaur and others .. Appellants. Versus Smt. Sunita Raja and another .. Respondents. AND A.O. NO. 512 OF 2005 Balkar Singh and others .. Appellants. Versus Smt. Sunita Raja and another .. Respondents. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for for the claimants/appellants. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for respondent/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Mr. AMit Kapri, Advocate for the respondent No.1/ owner of the Santro Car. Dated: 09-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2- A.O. No. 513/2005, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25-8-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in MACP No. 303/2004, awarding a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- in lieu of death of Lakha Singh, payable by New India Assurance Company. The Tribunal also directed that the compensation should be paid within sixty days, failing which interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of final payment. 3- A.O. No. 512/2005, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25-8-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in MACP No. 304/2004, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- in lieu of death of Bhupendra Singh, payable by New India Assurance Company. The Tribunal also directed that the compensation should be paid within sixty days, failing which interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of final payment. 4- The facts in short are that on 18-11-2004 at about 4 P.M. Lakha Singh and Bhupendra Singh were going to Rudrapur from Haldwani riding in a Motorcycle and when they reached near Sanjay Van, Rudrapur, Santro Car bearing registration No. M.P.-07E-4911, coming from Rudrapur side in a high speed, dashed the Motorcycle from front side, due to which both the Motorcyclists sustained grievous injuries. They were rushed to Hospital, but they succumbed to the injures. They claimants preferred petition for compensation in lieu of deaths of above two persons. 5- The owner of Sanctro Car/opposite party contested the petitions by filing her written statements and alleged the accident had occurred due to own negligence of Motorcyclist driver. She also alleged that the Santro Car was insured with New India Assurance Company, hence the compensation, if any, was liable to be paid by the insurer. 6- The New India Assurance Company also filed written statements in both the claim petitions and alleged that the Santro Car was not being plied in accordance with the conditions of the insurance policy, hence the Insurance Company denied its liability of compensation. 7- The learned Tribunal framed relevant issues in both the claim petitions. The claimants produced oral evidence as well as documentary evidence. The owner also filed registration, insurance policy, driving license etc. 8- The learned Tribunal after having considered the material on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the claim petitions for award of compensation. 9- Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimants have preferred these appeals for enhancement of compensation. 10- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11- Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amounts of compensation ignoring the evidence adduced by the claimants pertaining to the income of the deceased persons and the same be enhanced by this court in appeal. 12- On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the New India Assurance Company has opposed the aforesaid submission and contended that the Tribunal has already awarded sufficient amounts of compensation and the same need no interference. 13- First of all I take the A.O. No. 513/2005. In this matter the deceased Lakha Singh at the time of accident was 40 years of age and he was employed as driver in Uttaranchal Transport Corporation and according to the claimants his monthly salary was Rs. 8,000/-. P.W.3, Mohan Chandra Joshi, Bill Clerk, in Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has stated on oath that the deceased Lakha Singh was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 5,265/-. Out of this amount Rs. 586/- were deducted towards G.P.F. contribution. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency was assessed at Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘15’ and after multiplying the annual dependency to it, the total dependency comes to Rs. 6,00,000/-. Therefore, there cannot be said any calculation error in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of compensation within 60 days and in default interest @6% per annum was liable to be paid by the insurer. I find that a handsome amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and I find no ground to enhance the compensation, therefore, the impugned award does not require interference by this Court. 14- Similarly, in A.O. No. 512/2005, the deceased Bhupendra Singh was aged 20 years and according to the claimants he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Against the claimants version P.W.3, Didar Singh has deposed that deceased Bhupendra Singh was employed as driver in his truck and he used to give him a monthly salary of Rs. 3,200/- and also used to give Rs. 50/- per day for his food etc. The Tribunal has taken the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/-. The Tribunal has recorded finding that the deceased would have spent Rs. 50/- on his food as the same was being paid to him for the said purpose. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased has rightly been taken as Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, Rs. 24,000/- comes the annual dependency. The deceased was unmarried and the Tribunal has taken the age of the parents of the deceased for purpose of multiplier. They were 50 years of age and the multiplier of ‘11’ has rightly been adopted. Therefore, the total dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/- x 11= Rs. 2,64,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 6,000/- towards funeral expenses. Hence the gross dependency was calculated at Rs. 2,70,000/-. In the above facts of this case I do not find any ground to enhance the compensation. In this case also the Tribunal directed that the amount of compensation be deposed by the New India Assurance Company within 60 days and in default interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of final payment shall be payable. 15- Learned counsel for appellant/claimants in the instant case has submitted that after above calculation a little amount of compensation has come, therefore, the interest should be awarded from the date of filing of petition till the date of final payment. I see force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants. In my opinion, looking to the lesser amount of compensation in the instant case, it will be reasonable that the interest should be awarded in this case from the date of filing of petition till the date of final payment. Therefore, the award is liable to be modified to this extent. 16- For the foregoing reasons the A.O. No. 513/2005 is dismissed and the impugned award given in this case is confirmed. 17- However, A.O. No. 512/2005 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award in the instant case is modified up to the extent that the interest shall be payable @ 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing the petition till the date of final payment, instead of the conditional interest, as has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. In other respect the award given in the instant case is confirmed. 18- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. N0. 512/2005. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB