IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 187 of 2008 Ram Swaroop … Appellant Vs Kishore Singh Rautela & another … Respondents Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Dated: September 26, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 18.10.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 28 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 52,000/- in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.07.2006 at about 05:00 p.m., deceased-Asha Ram was traveling in vehicle No. UP07C/4464, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, due to which it met with accident, in which deceased-Asha Ram received serious injuries and died at the spot itself. The deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4500/- per month by agriculture, at the time of his death. Thus the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. 3. Opposite party No. 1 (owner & driver of the vehicle in question) has contested the claim 2 petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal admitting this fact that on the date of accident, he was the driver of the vehicle in question but denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving. He has further pleaded that on the date of accident, he was having the valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company. 4. Opposite party No. 2 – New India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal alleging therein that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question. It has further pleaded that the claimants mentioned the income of the deceased as well as amount of compensation on a higher side. It has further alleged that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having the valid driving licence and the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of policy. Therefore, the claim petition against the opposite party was liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues, which were discussed in a great detail:- 1. Whether the accident took placed on 20.07.2006 at 5 p.m. at Badan Gadhera Khala Name Tok in village Sunehrigad within Patwari Circle Devtadhar, District Tehri Garhwal due to rash and negligent 3 driving of the vehicle No. UP07C/4464 (Bus) by its driver/owner resulting death of Sri Asha Ram as alleged? 2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence, registration and fitness of the vehicle on the date of accident as alleged by opposite party No. 2 in paragraph No. 8 and 10 respectively of its WS? If so, its effect? 3. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and from which of the opposite parties? 6. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their cases. 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. 52,000/- as compensation vide judgment and award dated 18.10.2007. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. 8. Heard Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 9. The Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 1 relating to the rash and negligent driving has 4 considered the statement of Jaspal Singh and also considered the postmortem report etc. and held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. Here, the dispute is not related to the rash and negligent driving. The appellant is the claimant and filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of quantum. As far as the documents pertaining to the vehicle in question are concerned they are genuine. On the date of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability of compensation has rightly been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal while calculating the income of the deceased has considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and the Tribunal has committed error by not taking into consideration the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Therefore, the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. 11. As far as amount of compensation is concerned, the age of deceased appears to be 66 years. The accident took place on 20th July, 2006. The notional income which has been taken into account by the Tribunal is Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deducting one-third out of that amount the financial dependency of claimants has been 5 assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. The approach adopted by the Tribunal appears to be conservative. In view of the decision of 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 of deceased should have been taken into account as Rs.36,000/- per annum and after deducting one- third out of that amount financial dependency of claimants in this case comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. 12- The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as ‘5’ appears to be justified and does not require any interference. Therefore, after adopting the multiplier of ‘5’ the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant comes to Rs.24,000 x 5=Rs.1,20,000/-.The amount awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses as Rs.2,000/- shall also remain intact. 13- On the basis of the aforesaid calculation, the total amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant comes to Rs.1,20,000 + Rs.2,000=Rs.1,22,000/-. 14- With the aforesaid observations, appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 18.10.2007 is modified to the extent that claimant-appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,22,000/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Two Thousand) as compensation, instead of Rs.52,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @ 7% per annum (instead of conditional 6 interest as awarded by the Tribunal) from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. 15- Cross-objection also stands dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 7