IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 581 of 2006 Smt. Saroj Bala & another … Appellants Versus Puspendar Kumar Yadav & another … Respondents Sri Pramod Tiwari, Advocate for appellants Sri Prabhat Pande, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: June 17, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and award dated 6.7.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 90 of 2005, Smt. Saroj Bala & others vs. Puspender & others. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.7.2005 at about 10.00 p.m. deceased-Diwakar Sharma was coming from Roorkee through his motorcycle No. P.B.11S-7215. When the said vehicle reached in front of Kutchery Gate, Truck Tata bearing Registration No. H.R.38 B.G.6053 dashed the deceased-Diwakar Sharma, who succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. The said vehicle i.e. Truck Tata was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The deceased was 19 years of age and his monthly income was Rs.7000/- at the time of accident. 2 The opposite party no. 1 owner of vehicle filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition and pleaded that his vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd., therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. The opposite party no. 2-New India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed written statement pleading therein that offending vehicle in question was not being plied with valid papers and effective driving licence, hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.85,000/- in favour of claimants, payable by opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd., along with an interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 6.7.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Sri Pramod Tiwari, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. The factum with regard to the point of accident is not disputed as well as it is not disputed that the offending vehicle was having all the documents valid 3 on the date of the accident. It is also not disputed that the driver who was driving the offending vehicle was having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. The only point agitated before me by the counsel for the appellant is that the amount of award granted by the Tribunal is meager and liable to be enhanced. It has been submitted before me that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum. It has also been submitted that the interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award by the Tribunal is also on lesser side. It has also been submitted that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount out of total amount of compensation twice. Learned counsel for insurance company has made the rival contention by submitting that the deduction of 1/3rd amount out of total amount of compensation twice has been rightly made by the Tribunal. He has also submitted that the Tribunal had adopted a wrong multiplier in calculating the amount of compensation. The record reveals that the accident in this case took place on 16.7.2005. The income of the deceased has been alleged in the claim petition as Rs.7000/- per month but the claimants could not produce any cogent and reliable evidence in order to establish the income of the deceased and in view of absence of any cogent evidence to establish the income of the deceased the Tribunal has taken into consideration the notional income but the Tribunal has adopted a conservative approach in calculating the notional income of the deceased. In view of the 4 decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Shobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company and another, decided on 1.11.2006, the notional income should have been taken into consideration as Rs.30,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd out of it the financial dependency of claimants comes to Rs.20,000/- per annum. The deceased was admittedly an unmarried person at the time of accident and age of parents at the time of accident has been indicated as 43 and 45 years in the claim petition. In order to calculate the amount of compensation the age of parents would be taken into consideration as I have already observed that the deceased was an unmarried person aged about 19 years. Keeping in view the age of the parents- claimants as well as in the light of observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Versus S. Rajpriya & others, reported in 2005 (4) SC 87, The Managing Director, TNSTC versus Sripriya & others, reported in 2007(5) Supreme 301 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana (Smt) and others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 94, the multiplier cannot travel more than ‘10’ and after adopting the multiplier of ‘10’ the amount of compensation comes to Rs.20,000 x 10=Rs.2,00,000/-. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court passed in the case of Mohd. Shakir Ali and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2006(1) T.A.C. 397 (All.) as well as decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Donat Louis Machado and others vs. L. 5 Ravindra and others, 2000(1) T.A.C. 208 (SC), a deduction of 2/3rd in case of an unmarried boy has been found to be proper and just. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, again 1/3rd amount if is deducted out of total amount of compensation, then the amount of compensation to be paid in favour of claimants comes to Rs.1,33,333.33 (rounded Rs.1,34,000/). Having considered the entire material available on record and on the basis of calculation made by this Court, I come to the conclusion that the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants comes to Rs.1,34,000/-. The amount so awarded shall be paid by the insurer of offending vehicle i.e. National Insurance Co. Ltd. to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment (instead of interest @ 5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal). Rest of the findings recorded by the Tribunal relating to the aspect that the insurance company shall have the recoverable rights to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of vehicle, shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is Rs.1,34,000/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Four Thousand only), instead of Rs.85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment (instead of interest @ 5% per annum as has been 6 awarded by Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award). (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 7