IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. NO. 681 OF 2006 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation through its Regional Manager … Appellant. Versus Sohan Singh and others .. Respondents. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for respondents. Dated: 23-10-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation, against the judgment and award dated 14-8-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, U.S. Nagar, in MACT Case No. 8 of 2005. 2- The background facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 10-11-2004 at about 2.30 P.M. Prahlad Singh along with other colleagues was going to Sitarganj from village Biriabhud in bicycle. In front of Cheekaghaat bridge the Bus bearing registration No. U.P. 02-A-8530 climbed the bus over Prahlad Singh due to which he succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The deceased was 22 years of age and was earning about Rs. 4000/- from the work of painting. 3- The Uttaranchal Transport Corporation contested the petition and alleged that the accident has occurred due to own negligence of the deceased as he dashed himself with the bus. The accident did not occur due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the bus. 2 4- The learned tribunal framed issues in the petition. Parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions. The tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,14,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition. 5- Feeling aggrieved the respondent has preferred this appeal for setting aside the award. 6- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on higher side. There was no cogent and reliable evidence to prove the income of the deceased hence the tribunal should have assessed the dependency on the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The multiplier has also been adopted on higher side. 7- So far as the income of the deceased calculated by the tribunal is concerned, I do not find any illegality in it. The accident pertains to the years 2004 and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Sobhan Singh and another Vs. New India Insurance Company and another, decided on 1.11.2006, the notional income should be taken at Rs.3,00/- per month, as has been taken by the Tribunal, i.e. Rs 36,000/- per annum due to price hike for the purpose of calculating the annual dependency of the claimants and after deducting 1/3Prd P towards the personal expenses, the total dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The deceased at the time of accident was 22 years of age and he was unmarried, therefore, the age of parents should be taken into consideration for purposes of calculating the dependency. It has come on record that the father of 3 the deceased was 45 years of age and his mother was 42 years of age. Therefore, the suitable multiplier in this case should be 10, instead of 13, as has been adopted by the tribunal. Therefore, after adopting multiplier of 10, the dependency of the claimants upon the deceased comes to Rs. 24,000/- x 10 = Rs. 2,40,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same shall remain intact. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- + Rs. 2,000/-= Rs. 2,42,000/-. The tribunal has awarded an interest of 5% per annum. In my opinion at the relevant point of time the suitable rate of interest would be 6% per annum. 8- In view of above discussion, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 9- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 14-8-2006 is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,42,000/- as compensation along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, instead of Rs. 3,14,000/- (along with interest @ 5% per annum) as has been awarded by the tribunal. 10- The statutory amount of compensation, if any, deposited in this court, be remitted to the tribunal concerned. ISB (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 4