IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 487 of 2007 National Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Sri Indra Bahadur & others … Respondents Sri Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Mohd. Azim, Advocate, holding brief of Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 23.08.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 174 of 2006. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Durga Devi claimant/injured on 24.02.2006 at 05:30 p.m. was going to Masi from Bhikiyasen in a Jeep bearing registration No. UP04A/2114 along with her daughter Km. Nirmala. When the said jeep reached near Patwari Chauki, Sanana, it fell down into a ditch due to rash and negligence of its driver. All the passengers sustained serious injuries. The daughter of the claimant – Km. Nirlama died due to injuries on the way to hospital. According to the claim petition, the deceased was 12 years of age at the time of accident. Therefore, the parents of the deceased filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party no. 1 – Kastuvanand Tiwari – driver of the vehicle in question contested the claim petition denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It has alleged that 2 he was having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. It has further alleged that on the date of accident, he was driving the jeep slowly. Opposite party No. 2 was the owner of the vehicle in question and he was working as a driver in the said jeep. He has further alleged that the liability of compensation lies upon the owner of the vehicle and the claim petition was liable to be dismissed against him. 4. Opposite party No. 2 – Jeewan Singh – owner of the jeep also contested the claim petition denying the allegations made in the claim petition. He has admitted that he was the owner of the jeep No. UP04A/2114 and the said jeep insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident. It has further alleged that the driver of the jeep was having the valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the National Insurance Company Ltd. was liable to pay compensation, if any. 5. The National Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement alleging therein that it is the responsibility of the insured to prove the documents pertaining to the jeep in question. He has to prove the registration certificate, fitness certificate, road permit and he has to produce the valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the jeep in question. It has also pleaded that the Insurance Company has given any information, as provided under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Hence, the claim petition is not maintainable. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in 3 support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal has decreed the claim petition to the tune of Rs. 2,27,000/- as compensation vide judgment and award dated 23.08.2007. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred this appeal before this Court. 8. Heard Sri Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Mohd. Azim, Advocate, holding brief of Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 9. In the claim petition, the claimants have stated that on 24.02.2006 at about 03:00 p.m. they were traveling along with their daughter – Km. Nirmala in Jeep No. UP04A/2114. The jeep was being plied in a very rash and negligent manner. When the said jeep reached at Patwari Chauki Sanana, it fell into a ditch due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. In this accident, Km. Nirmala died due to injuries on the way to hospital. Sri Indra Bahadur (P.W.1) and Smt. Durga Devi (P.W.2), who are the eyewitness sitting inside the jeep on the date of accident and corroborated the version made in the claim petition. Further the Tribunal also considered the report lodged at Patwari Chauki, Sanana wherein it was lodged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep No. UP04A/2114. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep in question. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 4 10. Further the Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record has rightly held that on the date of accident, the driver of the jeep in question was having the valid and effective driving licence. On the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal has rightly decided this issue. Further it is also not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of quantum. He has contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is totally erroneous, perverse, unjustified and contrary to the evidence available on record. He has further stated that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the Tribunal has also not deducted 1/3rd of compensation as per IInd Schedule appended to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has submitted that the Tribunal after considering each and every aspect of the case as well as going through the entire material available on record, rightly awarded the amount of compensation which does not require any interference at this stage. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available before me, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 12 years adopted the multiplier of ‘15’ 5 which appears to be quite reasonable. The future of the child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The Tribunal adopted the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/-. The Tribunal considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Manju Devi & others Vs Musafir Paswan & others reported in T.A.C. 2005(1) page 609 adopted the multiplier of ‘15’. After adopting the multiplier of ‘15’ on the notional income, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,25,000/- (15 X 15000). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,27,000/-, which is quite justified. So far as the interest part is concerned, it need not require any interference. 14. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation in favour of the claimants appear to be justified. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 16. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 01.09.2008 ASWAL