IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 56 of 2006 Har Singh Dhami ..Appellant. Vs. Smt. Anmati and 6 others .. Respondents. Mr. Neeraj Upreti, Advocate for the appellant. None has appeared for respondents/claimants. Mr. R.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 14-05-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 7-11-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pithoragarh, in MACT Case No. 78 of 2002. 2- Brief facts of the case, are that on 24-8-2001 at about 6 A.M. deceased Gopal Singh was travelling in Jeep No. U.A. 05/325. When the said jeep reached near ‘Dobaat’ it met with accident due to rash and negligence of its driver due to which Gopal Singh sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. The deceased was 30 years of age and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month from agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry. The claimants filed claim petition for award of Rs. 4,10,000/- as compensation. 3- The Opposite Party No.1, owner of the offending jeep has denied the rash and negligence on the part of the jeep driver. The owner also alleged that the driver was having valid driving license and the vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company. 2 4- The Opposite Party No.2, New India Assurance Company denied the allegations made in the petition and alleged that the driver was not having valid driving license. The driving license had no endorsement to ply the vehicles on hill routes, therefore, breach of condition of insurance policy has been committed, and the insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 5- The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed issues in the petition. Thereafter, parties adduced evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal, after assessment of evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition for compensation of Rs. 2,56,800/- payable by New India Assurance Company and also given recoverable right to the insurance company against the owner of the jeep. 6- Feeling aggrieved, the owner of the offending jeep, has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7- Heard learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the jeep and learned counsel for the insurance company and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the vehicle was being driven by a driver having valid driving license but the Tribunal has ignored this fact and wrongly given the recoverable right to the insurance company against the owner of the vehicle, therefore, the direction given by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. 9- The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the New India Assurance has submitted that the driving license of the driver plying the offending jeep had no 3 endorsement to drive the vehicle on hill routes, therefore, breach of insurance policy was committed and the Tribunal has rightly given the recoverable right to the insurer. 10- Admittedly, the deceased Gopal Singh was travelling in the jeep U.P. 05/325 at the time of accident and he has died after sustaining grievous injuries at the spot. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged by Krishna Singh who was also travelling in the said jeep. He has stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver. The jeep was at a high speed as the deceased had fallen scattered at the spot. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident was the result of rash and negligence on the part of jeep driver. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the point of rash and negligence on the part of the driver. 11- The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,800/- per month after taking his daily wage at Rs. 60/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 14,400/-. The deceased at the time of accident was 30 years of age and, therefore, multiplier of 17 has rightly been adopted by the Tribunal and after adopting the multiplier of 17, the compensation was assessed as Rs. 2,44,800/-. The tribunal also awarded Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, to which the claimants are entitled to get. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the total awarded sum of Rs. 2,56,800/-. I do not find any error in the calculation of the quantum of compensation. 4 12- As far as the question that which of the opposite party, is liable to pay the compensation is concerned, the record reveals that Padam Singh was the driver in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and he was having valid driving license but that driving license did not have the endorsement for the hill driving. The learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that as the driving license was not having endorsement to drive the vehicle on hill routes, therefore, the driver was not authorized to drive the vehicle on hill routes. I do not find any force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned Tribunal has fallen in error by directing the insurance company to recover the amount of awarded compensation from the owner of the vehicle. As the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving license at the time of accident, therefore, the owner cannot be held liable to make payment of the awarded amount of compensation. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is to be paid by the insurance company only and not by the owner. Therefore, the direction issued by the Tribunal to the Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle, is liable to be set aside. 13- In view of the discussion made above, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 14- Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 7.11.2005 is modified upto the extent that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, i.e. Rs. 2,56,800/- along with interest indicated therein, shall be payable by New India Assurance Company only. The recoverable right given by the Tribunal to the Insurance 5 Company against the owner of the offending vehicle is set aside. 15- The statutory amount of compensation, deposited before this Court, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. ( B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 6