IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 33 of 2007 United India Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Smt. Aanandi & others … Respondents Sri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the appellant Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/insurer of vehicle No. DL4CU/3952 against the judgment and award dated 27.10.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Kashiput, District Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C. No. 157 of 2004, Smt. Aanandi & others Vs Rakesh Kumar & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.06.2004, the deceased Mulraj Singh was coming from Delhi to Kashipur along with Shakti Singh Pathania and Jagdish Pathania in a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. DL4CU/3952. When they reached at Thakurdwara near Jeet Singh Hotel, due to rash and negligent driving of the car and in order to save the cyclist, it met with an accident in which Mulraj Singh was dead and other sustained serious injuries. According to the claimants, the deceased was 50 years of age and used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month. Hence, an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was claimed as compensation by the claimants. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by fling their separate written statements before the court below. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing 2 learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 3,94,000/- vide judgment and award dated 27.10.2006. The amount of compensation was directed to be paid within 2 months and in case, of failure, it was directed that 9% interest shall be paid from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of its payment. 4. Feeling aggrieved, by the said judgment and award, the appellant/insurance company has come up in appeal before this Court. 5. Heard Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri G.C. Kakhchaura, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record. 6. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, that appears to be completely justified and I am also in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. The Tribunal also considering the documents available on record and came to the conclusion that on the date of accident the driver was having the valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, I do not find any ground to touch the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has committed error while calculating the amount of compensation. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has committed illegality by 3 adopting the multiplier on the higher side as well as awarding compensation along with higher rate of interest. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has submitted that the Tribunal rightly calculated the amount of compensation and awarded the same in favour of the claimants. At this stated, there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal decided issue No. 3 in this regard. The Tribunal has fell in error on two grounds, firstly, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier on higher side. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 57 years, therefore keeping in view the specific law laid down in view the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Kalpana & others reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 94, T.N. State Transport Corporation Vs S. Rajapriya & others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 276 and The Managing Director, TNSTC Vs Sripriya & others reported in 2007 (5) Supreme 301 in the instant case, the multiplier cannot travel more than ‘7’ in any manner. In case, the multiplier of ‘7’ is adopted in this case. then the amount of compensation as per the calculation made by the Tribunal comes to Rs. 3,36,000 (48000 X 7). The amount awarded by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under other different heads shall remain intact. 10. The second count is that the interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award, the rate of bank interest was 7% per annum. Therefore, in this case it would be proper to award the amount of compensation to the claimants along 4 with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 3,46,000/- instead of Rs. 3,94,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 7% per annum (instead of condition 9%) as has been awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award. 12. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 12.06.2009 ASWAL