IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 142 of 2008 Shakeel Ahmad … Appellant Vs The United India Insurance Company Ltd. & others … Respondents With Appeal From Order No. 324 of 2007 Jasvinder Singh & others … Appellants Vs Shakeel Ahmad & another … Respondents Sri C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants/owner of the vehicle Sri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the respondent/claimants Nos. 2 to 4 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.(Oral) Both these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle have been preferred by the appellant/owner of vehicle No. UP22T/435 as well as appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 29.05.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 97 of 2006, Jasvinder Singh & others Vs Shakeel Ahmad & others. As these appeals arise out against the same accident and facts are similar, therefore, both these are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.02.2006, the deceased – Narendra Kaur was coming from Bajpur to his house, when she reached near Fauji Colony near Gupta Dhaba, suddenly a truck bearing registration No. UP22T/435, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased from behind, due to which she died on the spot. According to the claim petition, the 2 deceased was 35 years of age on the date of accident and she used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month by stitching work. Hence, an amount of Rs. 26,40,000/- was claimed as compensation. 3. Thereafter, notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of notices, the opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement before the Tribunal. 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 cases. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,42,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 29.05.2007. The Tribunal at the same time directed that the awarded amount shall be recovered by the Insurance Company from the owner of the offending vehicle on account of reasons that the driver of the offending truck was not having valid and effective driving licence. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award the appellant/owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal before this Court. On the other hand, the appellants/claimants, also have preferred another appeal against the aforesaid judgment and award for enhancement. 6. Heard Sri C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants/owner of the vehicle, Sri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, 3 learned counsel for the respondent/claimants Nos. 2 to 4 and perused the record. 7. The sole controversy in appeal No. 142 of 2008 is as to whether the driver of the offending truck was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident or not. The Tribunal summoned the witness from the Office of R.T.O., Moradabad who has stated that the copy of the driving licence available on record was not issued from the Office of R.T.O., Moradabad, and on the basis of the same, the Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal for the aforesaid reason directed the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. At the stage of appeal, I directed the Regional Transport Authority, Moradabad to check and verify as to whether the copy of the driving licence filed by the owner/driver of the offending truck before the Tribunal was in fact valid and effective on the date of the accident and as to whether this driving licence was issued from the Office of R.T.O., Moradabad, or not. The confusion was in fact created by the witness Jaipal Singh (D.W.1) who was examined by the Tribunal in order to verify the driving licence and who might be under utter confusion and has stated that no such driving licence was issued from the Office of R.T.O., Moradabad. The report submitted by the R.T.O., Moradabad has indicated otherwise. The report received by me at the stage of the appeal clearly indicates that the Clerk – Jaipal Singh who has deposed before the Tribunal has created confusion and in fact the driving licence to Siddiq S/o Nadar was issued from the Office of R.T.O., Moradabad on 15.11.1998 which was valid upto 14.11.1991. This report submitted by the R.T.O., Moradabad is available on the record of the appeal as paper No. 47. 4 8. I granted time to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company for verifying the report submitted by the R.T.O., Moradabad but no objection has been filed by the Insurance Company in this regard, as yet. Therefore, I do not have any other option except to consider the report, submitted by the R.T.O., Moradabad, genuine and authentic and I do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. I am therefore, of the view that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence to ply the vehicle on the date of accident and on account of this reason, I set aside the direction issued by the Tribunal for recovering the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle in question. 9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal No. 142 of 2008 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto an extent that the awarded amount shall be paid by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. who is the insurer of the vehicle No. UP22T/435. The Insurance Company thus shall not have any recoverable right from the owner of the vehicle I question. 10. Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has pressed the appeal filed by the claimant mainly on the point of quantum. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted before the Court that in this case accident took place in the year 2001 and the annual notional income of the deceased was to be considered as Rs. 36,000/- per annum whereas, the Tribunal adopted the notional income of Rs. 24,000/-, which appears to be unjustified. Therefore, the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. 5 11. As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed this point while deciding issue No. 4, but the approach adopted by the Tribunal in this case appears to be erroneous. The Tribunal has also considered the monthly notional income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/-, which appears to be absolutely unjustified in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Shobhan Singh & another Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd. & another, decided on 01.11.2006 wherein it has held that in view of the price hike the notional income of the deceased to be taken as Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount as personal expenses of the deceased, the financial dependency of the claimants shall comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. In view of the aforesaid decision discussed by me (supra) the notional income is taken as Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd of it as personal expenses of the deceased, the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000/-. 12. Further from the perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it reveals that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as ‘15’ appears to be on the higher side. The age of the deceased was 35 years as is evident from the evidence available on record. Keeping 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 ‘13’. On the basis of the aforesaid 6 calculation, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,12,000/- (24000 X 13). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses require no interference. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,14,000/-. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal No. 324 of 2007 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 3,14,000/- instead of Rs. 2,42,000/- along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. 14. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant/owner of the vehicle in appeal No. 142 of 2008 be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 15. Let the copy of this order be placed in A.O. No. 324 of 2007. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 22.07.2009 ASWAL