IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL. A.O. NO. 92 OF 2008 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. …. Appellant. Versus Smt. Hema Bhatt and 3 others … Respondents. Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mehra, holding brief of Mr. Manoj Tewari, Advocate for respondents/ claimants. None has appeared for respondent No.4. UDated: 16-09-2008 UHon’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 31-1-2008, passed by District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pithoragarh, in MACT Case No. 35 of 2004. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that on 26-5-2001 at about 10-25 P.M. in the night, Naib Subedar Naresh Chandra Bhatt, after finishing his duty in Core Headquarter, was returning to his house riding in a scooter. When he turned towards his right side and crossed the 3/4Pth P part of the road, suddenly Bus No. J.K. 06/1677 came from behind in a high speed and dashed the scooter and the bus driver ran away from the spot. The deceased Naresh Chandra Bhatt sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The deceased at the time of his death was 42 years of age and was posted as Naib Subedar, a Junior Commissioned Officer, in the Intelligence Unit of Indian Army and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 9,453/-. The claimants being the widow, and children of the deceased, filed claim petition for compensation. 2 3- The opposite party No.1, owner of the offending bus contested the claim petition by filing her written statement before the Tribunal and denied the allegations made in the petition. The owner of the offending bus has admitted the accident, but alleged that the bus was insured with Oriental Insurance Company and the liability of compensation, if any, is upon the insurance company. 4- The opposite party No.2, Oriental Insurance Company also filed its written statement and denied most of the allegations for want of knowledge. The insurance company alleged that the driver of offending bus had no valid driving to drive the vehicle on hill routes of State of Jammu and Kashmir. The bus was being driven against the terms of insurance policy. It was also alleged that exorbitant amount of compensation has been demanded by the claimants. 5- The learned Tribunal, on the pleadings of parties, framed the following issues in the claim petition:- 1- Whether on 26-5-2001 at about 10-25 P.M. at Nagrota- Jammu Motor Marg near Yadunath Enclave Parivar Awas, the driver of Bus No. J.K. 06/1677 dashed the scooter of Naresh Chandra Bhatt from behind in a rash and negligent manner, due to which Naresh Chandra Bhatt was badly crushed and died?. 2- Whether the offending vehicle was having valid documents?. If so, its effect and whether the deceased had valid driving license to drive the scooter?. 3- Whether the terms of insurance policy were breached? If so, its effect?. 3 4- To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to get and from whom?. 5- Whether the driver of the offending bus was not possessing valid driving license to ply the vehicle on hill routes of Jammu and Kashmir?. 6- The claimants in support of their case adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Thereafter the learned Tribunal on hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 11,51,360/-, along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition, i.e. 30-4-2004 till the date of actual payment, against the Oriental Insurance Company. 7- Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the Oriental Insurance Company has preferred this appeal before this Court. The claimants/respondents also filed cross-objection to enhance the compensation. 8- Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and perused the record. 9- Learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company/appellant has contested the claim petition only on the point of quantum of compensation. According to him the Tribunal has awarded an exorbitant amount of compensation. He has submitted that the tribunal has applied the multiplier on higher side, therefore, the compensation should be calculated at a multiplier of lesser side and the amount of compensation should be reduced. 4 10- On the other hand learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence on record and awarded the compensation on lower side. He also submitted that the tribunal has awarded the interest on lesser side and it should be enhanced. 11- After considering the material on record, I find force in the submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The salary certificate of the deceased Naresh Chandra Bhatt, paper No. 7-C/5 has been filed on record. Perusal of this document reveals that the deceased was getting Rs. 9,453/-as salary per month, the annual income being Rs. 9,453/- X 12= Rs. 1,13,436=00. After deducting 1/3Prd P towards personal expenses, the net annual dependency comes to Rs.75,624/-. The learned Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 42 years as per the post mortem report as well as on the basis of pleading and applied the multiplier of 15. In my opinion the multiplier of 15 adopted by the tribunal is certainly on higher side in view of the various recent pronouncements by Hon’ble Apex Court. In my opinion the proper multiplier in the instant case should be ‘11’. After adopting the multiplier of ‘11’ the total dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 75,624/- X 11= Rs. 8,31,864/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony. In my opinion the claimants are entitled to receive the aforesaid amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal. In this way the total compensation comes to Rs. 8,31,864/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- = Rs. 8,48,846/- rounded to Rs. 8,48,900/-. 5 12- So far as the interest on the amount of compensation is concerned, perusal of impugned award reveals that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the actual date of payment. In my opinion the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is certainly on lower side and it should be 7.5% per annum instead of 6% per annum. 13- For the discussion made above, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 14- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 31-1-2008 is modified up-to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 8,48,900/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment, from the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company, instead of Rs. 11,51,360/- along with 6% per annum, as has been awarded by the tribunal. 15- The cross objection filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation stands dismissed. 16- The statutory amount of compensation deposited with this Court, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB