IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 782 of 2006 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation .. Appellant. Versus Smt. Nalani Tandon and 3 others … Respondents. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, Advocate for the claimants/respondents. AND A.O. No. 239 of 2008 Smt. Nalni Tandon and others .. Appellants. Versus Uttarakhand Transport Corporation .. Respondents. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the respondent. Dated: 9-6-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both these appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 26-9-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACT Case No. 224 of 2004. As these appeals arise out of the same award, hence they are being decided by this common judgment. 2- Brief facts of the case are that Dr. Pushkar Nath Tandon, on 9.9.2004 was going on Scooter No. U.A. 06-4678 to Rampur District Hospital and when he reached near I.T.I. Police Chauki at about 7.45 A.M. the Roadways Bus bearing No. U.P. 07-E-8012 came there at a high speed and dashed the scooter and he sustained grievous injuries. He died in the way while being brought to Kashipur. According to the claimants the deceased was posted as G.D.M.O. in Government Hospital, Rampur, and his monthly salary was Rs. 2 30,000/-. The claimants filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/-. 3- The Opposite Party/ Uttaranchal State Transport Corporation contested the claim petition by filing its written statement and alleged that the Scooterist himself dashed with the bus and became injured. The bus driver had no fault. 4- On the pleadings of parties the Tribunal framed issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, parties adduced evidence in support of the case. 5- The learned Tribunal after having considered the evidence on record and hearing counsel for parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 14,47,000/- compensation along with interest @ 5% per annum from 11.10.2004 till the date of actual payment payable by The Uttaranchal Transport Corporation. 6- Feeling aggrieved, the U.T.C. has preferred the A.O. No. 782 of 2006, whereas the claimants have filed A.O. 239/2008 for enhancement. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has submitted that the accident has occurred due to own fault of the Scooterist and the Tribunal has arbitrarily held the driver of the Roadways Bus negligent. He also submitted that huge amount of compensation has been awarded contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be quashed. 3 9- On the other hand the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on lesser side and the same deserves to be enhanced. He also alleged that the Tribunal has awarded the interest on lesser side. 10- From perusal of record it reveals that the claimants have preferred the claim petition with the allegations that the driver of the Bus was negligent and he dashed the scooter of the deceased due to which he has sustained injuries and has died due to the injuries. To prove the factum of negligence, claimants produced P.W.2, Baijnath Khanna. This witness happened to go to Bajpur at the time of accident riding in his Car. He deposed that as soon as he reached in front of Bahalla Bridge, the driver of Bus No. U.P. 07-E-8012 came there in a high speed and negligently dashed the Scooter of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and has died. The claimants also filed copy of F.I.R. lodged at Police Chauki I.T.I. Kashipur. Although the bus driver D.W.1, Bhura Singh has deposed that the accident had occurred due to own fault of the scooterist, but no reliable corroborative evidence was adduced. The driver has not lodged any report to this effect at the Police Station. Had the driver of the Bus was not negligent, he would have lodged the report of the accident narrating the negligence on the part of the scooterist. Further, no reason has been assigned to P.W.2, Baijnath Khanna as to why he would have deposed falsely against the Power Corporation. In my opinion the Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligence of bus driver. 11- So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants have filed salary certificate 4 paper No. 16-C/2. The certificate has been proved by P.W.3. According to this salary certificate the deceased was getting Rs. 27,897/- per month salary after usual deductions. The Tribunal after making deductions towards personal expenses of a Doctor, assessed the monthly dependency of Rs. 15,000/, the annual being Rs. 1,80,000/-. The deceased was 55 years of age and the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ‘8’, which in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Tribunal deducted a greater amount towards personal expenses, appears to be just and proper. Therefore, the total dependency of Rs. 1,80,000/- X 8= Rs. 14,40,000/- has been awarded. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium and estate. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs. 14,47,000/-. I find no illegality and impropriety in the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal on the point of quantum of compensation. 12- As regards the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, it is certainly on lesser side. The rate of interest should be 7.5% per annum instead of 5% per annum as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 13- For the aforesaid reasons the appeal filed by Insurance Company lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, the appeal of the claimants deserves to be partly allowed, so far as the interest part is concerned. 14- Accordingly, the A.O. No. 782/2006 is dismissed. 15- The A.O. No. 239/2008, filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified upto 5 the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to get interest on the awarded amount of compensation of Rs. 14,47,000/- @ 7.5% per annum instead of 5% per annum, as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 16- The amount of compensation, if any, deposited in this Court, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 17- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 239 of 2008. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 6