IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. NO. 378 OF 2003 Suresh Chandra S/o Tej Ram R/o Village Garhgari P.O. Khansu, Tehsil and District Nainital, At present R/o Chorgaliyan, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital ..Appellant. Versus 1- Smt. Sudha W/o Late Narendra Pal Singh 2- Kunwar Prashant Singh @ Master Sorabh S/o Late Narendra Pal Singh, minor through his mother, next friend and natural guardian Smt. Sudha, R/o Manzul Bhawan, Kicha Road, Sitarganj, P.O. and P.S. Sitarganj, District U.S. Nagar. 3- Chiranjit Singh S/o Indra Singh R/o Kasba Nanakmatta, P.O. and P.S. Sitarganj District U.S. Nagar. 4- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 5- Rajiv Kumar S/o Surendra Singh, R/o Santashram Gali, Haldwan, District Nainital ..... Respondents. Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. Sri Z.A. Siddiqui, Advocate for the Insurance Company. Dated: 19-3-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, U/S 173 Cr.P.C., has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 1-12-2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal /Addl. District Judge-I/F.T.C. Nainital, in MACP No. 732/1992. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 16-9-1992 at about 5.15 P.M. deceased Narendra Pal Singh and Balwant Singh riding in Motorcycle PBQ 362 were going on Haldwani Sitarganj Road. Three kilometers away from Chorgaliyan suddenly Bus No. DEP 8095 came there at a high speed and dashed the Motorcycle, due to which both the Motorcyclists sustained grievous injuries and died. The deceased Narendra Pal Singh was 32 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 2533-37 P. He was the sole bread-earner in the family. 3- The Opposite Party/driver of the Bus filed written statement in the case and denied the rash and negligence on his part. 4- The opposite Party/owner contested the claim by filing the written statement alleging therein that he had sold his bus to Rajeev Kumar in the year 1990 and it was being plied by him and he had no concern with the offending vehicle. 5- The Opposite Party/New India Assurance Company alleged that the offending Bus was not insured with it. 6- The Opposite Party/Rajeev Kumar also filed written statement and alleged that he was not registered owner of the bus and he has wrongly been impleaded party in the petition. 7- The learned Tribunal on the pleading of parties frame the relevant issues in the case. 8- Thereafter, parties led evidence. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the petition for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- against the owner Suresh Chandra along with interest @ 12% per annum from 16.11.1992 till the date of actual payment. 9- Feeling aggrieved, the appellant Suresh Chandra has preferred this appeal. 10- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11- Perusal of the impugned judgment and award reveals that the learned Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the offending bus DEP 8095 was being driver at a rash and negligent manner and it dashed the Motorcycle in which the deceased was riding along with one another person who also succumbed to injuries in the Hospital. The Motorcycle was being plied on left side of the road. The Bus driver was also prosecuted for the said accident and charge sheet paper No. 28-C/8 was submitted against him by the Police. The learned Tribunal has held the negligence on the part of the Bus driver. 12- So far as the contention of the owner/appellant that at the time of accident he was not the owner of the Bus in question, is concerned, the appellant has not been able to substantiate his contention before the learned Tribunal by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. The Opposite Party Rajeev Kumar has been produced as D.W.4. He has admitted that the bus in question was purchased by him on 26-10-93, which is the date subsequent to the present accident. Paper No. 149-C is the sale letter dated 10-9-1993. Therefore, it has amply been proved that at the time of accident, i.e. 16-9-1992, the offending bus was in the ownership of appellant Suresh Chandra. I hold that the learned Tribunal has rightly held Suresh Chandra liable to pay the compensation. Further, this fact gets strength on account of the circumstance that on the basis of the paper No. 72- C/7, it appears that in another case before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, in which Balwant Singh in the same accident has died, a compromise was filed and in that compromise the appellant against whom that case was filed, entered into compromise with the claimant and that petition was decided on the basis of the aforesaid compromise on 28-3-1995. Therefore, this document also makes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant devoid of any force that the appellant Suresh Chandra was not the owner of the offending bus in question and the bus was not in his possession on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has also recorded a categorical finding that the offending bus in question was registered in the name of the appellant, Suresh Chandra on the date of the accident, therefore, all these circumstances are clearly indicating towards this aspect of the matter that the owner of the offending bus in question was Suresh Chandra and none-else on the date of the accident. 13- As regards the quantum of compensation, the deceased was employed in Kisan Sahkari Sugar Mill Sitarganj as Purchase Assistant and was getting Rs. 2527-33 P. per month. Salary certificate was produced. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15 on the age of 32 years. The finding recorded by the Tribunal do not require interference by this Court. 14- However, it has been brought to my notice that towards the amount awarded by the Tribunal a sum of Rs. 2,14,000/- has already been deposited by the appellant and said sum has been deposited in F.D.R. with some Nationalized Bank in the year 2003. The learned counsel for the appellant has informed the court that the appellant in addition to aforesaid amount has also deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, as statutory amount at the time of filing the appeal. Therefore, the appellant in all has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,39,000/-. The claimants will also be getting interest on the amount invested in the form of F.D.R. in the year 2003. In the aforesaid circumstances, I think that the end of justice would be served in case if the impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants should get the amount already deposited by the appellant, as stated above and the appellant, in addition to the aforesaid amount, shall also deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the Tribunal concerned, within a period of 15 days, which shall also be payable to the claimants. 15- In view of aforesaid observation, the impugned award made by the Court6 below is modified. In case if the appellant pays the entire amount stated above in the body of this judgment, the interest indicated in the impugned award shall stand set aside and the execution of the award shall be deemed to be fully satisfied. 16- With the aforesaid observation the appeal is finally disposed of. 17- Let the amount deposited before the High Court, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB