IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 313 of 2006 1- Smt. Janki Devi, W/O Shri Birendra Singh, R/o Village Tharali, Post Office Tharali, Tehsil Tharali, District Chamoli 2- Birendra Singh, S/o Shri Ganga Singh, R/o Village Tharali, Post Office Tharali, Tehsil Tharali, District Chamoli … Appellants Vs 1- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office at Railway Road, Jwalapur, Haridwar 2- M/s Tehri Steel Ltd., Rishikesh, through its proprietor Prem Singh, S/o Late Sardar Sant Singh, Resident of Dhalwala, Post Office Rishikesh, District Dehradun 3- Madan Kumar Saini, S/o Shri Shyam Lal Saini, R/o Village Kurdi, Police Station Manglore, District Haridwar, At present at Darshani Gate, Post Office Dehradun, District Dehradun 4- Ramesh Chandra Purohit, S/o Shri Pitambar Purohit, R/o A-847, Mayur Vihar, Phase III, New Delhi … Respondents Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the appellants Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 Dated: March 12, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2006 passed by Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli, in M.A.C. Case No. 76 of 2004, Smt. Janki Devi & another vs. Oriental Insurance & Co. & others. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 5.6.2003, Mukesh Kumar (deceased), son of appellants no. & 2, was travelling along with other passengers from Simli to Delhi; by Vehicle No. D.L.- 1/V.B.-0207. When the said vehicle reached near P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar, Truck No. UP- 12A-3569 coming from the opposite direction, collided with the said vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Truck No. UP-12A- 3569 (Madan Kumar Saini) resulting in the instantaneous death of Mukesh Kumar on the sport itself. The claimants pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased-Mukesh Kumar was aged 17 years and 7 months and he was selected in Air Force and his training as Air Craftman was to be commenced w.e.f. 16.6.2003. The claimants/appellants are dependants and legal heirs of Mukesh Kumar (deceased). Therefore, the claimants have prayed for award of compensation. The insurer-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed its written statement refuting the contents made in the claim petition. It has been alleged by the insurer that the vehicles involved in the alleged accident were not insured with it. Both the driving licence, valid registration certificates, permits etc. at the time of accident, hence, the claim petition filed by the claimants deserves to be dismissed against it. The owner of truck in question filed his written statement and alleged that his vehicle (Truck No. UP-12A-3569) was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident. The driver of truck in question was having valid driving licnece, therefore, insurer was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The driver of truck in question (No. UP-12A- 3569) filed his written statement and alleged that he was driving the truck in question at the time of accident. He also alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Qualis No. D.L.-1/V.B.-0207. He also alleged that at the time of accident the said vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., hence, he was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner of vehicle (Qualis No. D.L.-1/V.B.- 0207) also filed written statement and admitted himself the owner of the said vehicle. He also alleged that the said vehicle was being driven by its driver having valid licence very carefully and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck in question. The said vehicle (Qualis No. D.L.-1/V.B.- 0207) was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and was having all valid papers relating to said vehicle at the time of accident. The Tribunal framed relevant issues on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties and held that claimants’ son Mukesh Kumar died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident on 5.6.2003, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of Truck and Qualis involved in the accident. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,55,800/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till final payment of compensation, against the Insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant/claimants has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no. 1/Insurance Company and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has submitted that deceased-Mukesh Kumar was selected in Air Forde as Air Craftman and had he not met with accident, he would have joined in Air Force and would be getting Rs. 6450/- per month as salary after completion of his training. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in not accepting the salary and calculating the compensation on the lesser amount of stipend to be paid to the deceased. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced. As far as income of the deceased is concerned, the evidence and record clearly establish this aspect that the deceased was approximately 18 years of age at the time of accident. The record further reveals that the deceased was selected in the Air Force as an Airman and he had to join the academy for his training and during the period of his training i.e. 92 weeks, he was to get a stipend of Rs. 2,850/- per month. The Tribunal is right in coming t the conclusion that the future expectancies cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. It would be quite pre- mature to conclude at this stage as to what would have been the future of the deceased, in case, if he had not met with the accident. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the dependency of the claimants should be reckoned by the notional income fixed in Schedule II of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. Here it may also be noted that the notional income was fixed in the year 1994. The accident has taken place in the year 2003 and after a lapse of more than 9 years certainly there has been considerable price hike and the notional income taken by the Tribunal should be enhanced. The Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2006, Shobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company ad another, decided on 1.11.2006, has held that the notional income on account of price hike should be Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Hence, looking to the price hike and applying the ratio of the above cited case of the Division Bench of this Court, the notional income in the case of the deceased would be Rs. 36,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses out of this notional income, the dependency would come to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The deceased was unmarried and his parents are 47 years and about 41 years respectively. Therefore, keeping in view the notional income of the deceased as well as the financial dependency of the claimants as Rs. 24,000/- per annum, the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants comes to Rs. 24,000 x 11=Rs. 2,64,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses, which, in my opinion, the claimants are entitled to get. In this way, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,69,000/-. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2,69,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Only), instead of Rs. 2,55,800/- as awarded by the Tribunal. This amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants would be paid by the insurer of the vehicle i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, along with an interest of 7% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP