IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 418 of 2005 Smt. Saru Devi Deuka and another … Appellants. Versus Gurumeet Singh and another .. Respondents. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Manish Dalakoti, holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Learned counsel for the respondent No.2. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. Dated: 12-5-2008 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 30-7-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Champawat, in MACT Case No. 28 of 2004. 2- Brief facts of the case, are that on 23-4-2004, at about 8-9 P.M. in the night Ram Singh Deuka was returning in his dwelling place after finishing his work. Truck No. H.P. 17-6154 came there from opposite direction on Saton-Kamrou Motor Road in a rash and negligent manner and hit Ram Singh Deuka, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. At the time of his death he was 35 years of age and was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by doing the labour work in the mine. The claimants filed petition for compensation of Rs. Ten lacs. 3- The Opposite Party No.1, owner of the offending vehicle filed his written statement and denied most of the allegations made in the petition. He alleged that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company and its driver was having valid driving license, 2 therefore, the liability of compensation is upon the insurer. 4- The Opposite Party No.2, insurer of the vehicle also filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the petition. It alleged that the huge amount of compensation has been demanded by the claimants. The insurer also made the assertion in its written statement that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license, the accident has occurred in Himanchal Pradesh, therefore the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try the petition. 5- The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the petition. The claimants adduced evidence in support of their case. The opposite party No.1 also filed photo copies of cover note, driving license, tax receipt etc. Thereafter, the Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- as compensation against the National Insurance Company along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 6- Being aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased was a mine labourer and was getting a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has committed error in taking into 3 consideration the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum for calculating the dependency of the claimants. He also contended that the accident pertains to year 2004, and due to considerable hike in price index, the notional income should have been fixed at a larger amount, therefore, the compensation should be enhanced. 9- On the other hand the learned counsel for the insurance company has opposed the above submission and contended that the Tribunal has adopted the higher multiplier and the same should be reduced. 10- Perusal of records reveals that although the claimants have alleged the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence has been filed in support of their contention. In absence of reliable evidence in respect of salary of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the dependency of the claimants. However, looking to the fact that the amount of notional income has been fixed in the Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the year 1994, and the accident has occurred in the year 2004, and there has been considerable hike in the price index, therefore, the notional income should be taken as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. I accordingly take the notional income of Rs. 36,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the dependency comes Rs. 24,000/- per annum. 11- The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘17’ in the instant case. The age of the deceased was 35 years and the Tribunal certainly has adopted the multiplier on higher side, in view of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court 4 in the matter of New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Kalpana and others, reported in 2007(1) T.A.C. 795, where the multiplier of 13 was applied on the age of 33 years. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya & Ors, reported in 2005(4) Supreme 87, has adopted the multiplier of ‘12’ where the deceased was 38 years of age, and in the case of The Managing Director, TNSTC Vs. Sripriya & Ors., reported in 2007(5) Supreme 301, the Hon’ble Apex Court applied the multiplier of ‘12’ where the deceased was 37 years of age. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case a suitable multiplier of ‘12’ should be adopted and after adopting the multiplier of ‘12’ the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 24,000/- X 12 = Rs. 2,88,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 5,000/- under the head of love and affection, to which the claimants are entitled to get, and in this way the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,93,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment and in my opinion the claimants shall get the interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded by this Court, @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 12- For the discussion made above, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 13- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 30-7-2005, is modified up-to the extent that the claimants/appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2,93,000/- payable by National Insurance Company along with 5 interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of final payment, instead of Rs. 1,75,000/-, as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 14- The apportionment of the amount of compensation now shall be as follows:- 1- Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of Km. Manisha, minor daughter of the deceased in some nationalized bank till she attain the age of majority. 2- Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to Smt. Radha Devi, mother of the deceased. 3- Balance amount along with interest shall be paid to Smt. Saru Devi, widow of the deceased. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 6