IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 282 of 2006 United India Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & others. … Respondents Sri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri D.K. Sharma holding brief of Sri Vipul Sharma, leanred counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5. Sri S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 08.02.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./Ist Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Claim Petition No. 104 of 2004 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,97,542/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2004 at about 10:00 p.m., the deceased – Arjun Lal Gupta along with his wife – Nirmala Devi as well as son – Manish, Ashish and daughter Dipika and other passengers was traveling in Jeep No. UP01/4886 from Tanakpur to Purnagiri. The said Jeep was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner due to which, the said jeep met with an accident and fell into the kind. In this accident Sri Arjun Lal Gupta and Samiyal died at the spot while other passengers sustained injuries. At the time of the accident, the deceased – Arjun Lal Gupta was 46 years of age and working in M/s Sehkari Chini Mill, Gadarpur as a Boiler Attendant and used to earn Rs. 5,815/- as monthly salary. The claimants are the dependent upon the deceased, therefore, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 10.00 lacs as compensation. 3. Mohd. Mayien – driver of Jeep No. UP01/4886 contested the claim petition alleging therein that on the date of accident, he was driving the jeep cautiously and slowly. It has further alleged that suddenly, the jeep dashed with the pole and he lost control over the jeep and it ovrerturned and fell into the Khud. He has also pleaded that the owner of the vehicle was having the valid permit and he was also having the valid driving licence. 4. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal concerned denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It has further alleged that the said jeep was not insured with the Insurance Company at the time of the accident as well as the driver of the jeep also not possessing the valid driving licence. It has also alleged that the number of passengers were more then its capacity and the amount of compensation is exordbitant. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. Both the parties led the evidence in support of their cases. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition in favour of the claimants to the tune of Rs. 4,97,542/- vide judgment and award dated 08.02.2006. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant/Insurance Company preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri D.K. Sharma holding brief of Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5. Sri S.K. Posti, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and perused the record. 8. The claimants have produced Nirmala Devi (P.W. 1), Sri Pryag Mishra (P.W.2) and Sri K.D. Sharma (P.W.3). The claimants have failed paper No. 7g/2 – complaint, 7g/3 – postmortem report, 7g/4 funeral papers, 7g/5 driving licence of driver, 7g/6 – Insurance Policy, 7g/7 photocopy of permit, 7g/8 R.C., 7g/9 cover note of policy, 7g/10 fitness certificate, 7g/11 salary receipt, 7g/12 death certificate in support of their case. 9. The United India Insurance Company also produced the photocopy of Insurance Policy of Jeep No. UP01/4886 before the Tribunal. No oral evidence has been produced by the opposite party/Insurance Company. 10. Perusal of the impugned judgment as well as going through the entire record available before me, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly decided the issue with regard to the rash and negligence and held responsible to the driver of the jeep in question. Smt. Nirmala Devi (P.W.1) who was the witness of accident has stated in her statement that the driver of the Jeep, driving the same in a very rash and negligent manner due to which her husband – Arjun Lal Gupta sustained serious injuries and died on the way to hospital. Prayag Mishra (P.W.2), who was sitting inside the jeep on the date of accident also corroborated the version of Smt. Nirmala Devi and has stated that the said accident took place due to negligence of the driver. On the date of accident, the jeep in question collided with the pole and the driver lost control over the vehicle in question due to rash speed and the jeep fell into the Khud due to which Arjun Lal Gupta died in this accident. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence as well as statement of the witnesses rightly held that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver. 11. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon the paper No. 46g which is salary certificate issue by M/s Kishan Sahkai Chini Mills Ltd., District Udham Singh Nagar. Perusal of paper No. 46g, it reveals that the deceased was getting Rs. 5,815/- as monthly salary and after deducting G.P.F. of Rs. 676/-, L.I.C. of Rs. 294, H.R.A. of Rs. 14.50 and Joint Insurance of Rs. 113.75, in total it comes to Rs. 1,098.25 and after deducting the same, the monthly income to Rs. 4,716.75 then the annual income of the death of the deceased, he was 46 years of age and the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ‘13’ for calculating the amount of compensation. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,90,542/-. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and further Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and deprivation of love and affection and the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,97,542/-. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount of compensation which cannot be interfered by this Court, by way of the appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has committed illegality while passing the award. He has submitted that the driver of the jeep was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the liability to pay any compensation lies upon the owner of the jeep in question. 13. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it is quite clear that the Tribunal has held that although the driver of the jeep was not having the valid and effective driver licence, but the Insurance Company cannot be exempted from its liability to pay compensation as the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company. However, the Tribunal has given liberty to the Insurance Company to take necessary steps for recovering the amount from the owner of the vehicle, if found guilty. 14. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 08.02.2006 is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 21.05.2008 ASWAL