IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 180 of 2005 1- Smt. Savitri Sarkar w/o late Nityanand Sarkar 2- Himanshu Sarkar s/o Late Nityanand Sarkar 3- Sudhanshu Sarkar s/o Late Nityanand Sarkar All R/o Ward No.6, Gandhi Nagar, Dineshpur, Tehsil Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar … Appellants Versus 1- The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Nainital Road, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar 2- Anil Kumar Sambharwal s/o Swarn Singh, R/o Aadarsh Colony, Rudrapur, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar 3- Chaudhari Sanjay Singh s/o Chaudhari Surendra Singh, R/o Village Chattarpur, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar 4- Gurucharan Singh s/o Sri Kaushal Singh R/o Changali, Nadeli Baheri, District Bareilly (U.P.) … Respondents Sri Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the appellants Sri M.IK. Goel, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 Sri S.K. Mandal, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Sri Vishwa Deepak Bisen, Advocate, for respondent no. 3. Dated: March 24, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the claimants/appellants, against the judgment and award dated 15.01.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/First Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 239/2002, Smt. Savitri Sarkar & others vs. Anil Kumar Sambharwal & others. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to present appeal are that on 19.7.2002 at about 9.30 a.m. deceased-Nityanand Sarkar was going from Dineshpur to Rudrapur through Bus No. A.S.01B/2717. When the said bus reached near Matkota Farm, the driver of the bus overtook the bus from the right side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with Tractor Trolley No. UP- 25/3516 coming from front side, on account of which the bus over turned and deceased-Nityanand Sarkar along with other passengers sustained serious injuries. Deceased-Nityanand Sarkar was admitted in Agrasen Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged by appellant no. 3 at P.S. Kotwali, Rudrapur. The claimants have pleaded that at the time of accident the deceased was 54 years of age and used to earn Rs. 2,50,000/- per annum from agricultural work and out of that amount he used to spend Rs. 10,l000/- towards his personal expenses. The claimants have claimed for award of compensations of Rs. 27,30,000/-. Opposite party no.1 (owner of Bus No. A.S. 01/B 2717) has filed written statement alleging therein that on 19.7.2002 at 9.30 a.m. driver of bus in question was driving the bus from Gularbhoj- Dineshpur to Rudrapur slowly and carefully and at about 10.00 a.m. near Matkota Farm the driver of Tractor Trolley No. UP 25/3516 which was coming from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, dashed with the bus due to which the passengers sitting in it sustained injuries. The driver of the bus in question had no fault and at the time of accident driver was having valid driving licence. The accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of driver of Truck. The said bus at the time of accident was insured with New India Insurance Company, which cover not no. 038424 and is valid from 14.3.2002 to 13.3.2003. Hence, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. Opposite party no. 2 has filed written statement stating therein that he was not the registered owner of Tractor No. UP-25/3516 at the time if accident and alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Bus No. A.S. 01/B2717. Opposite party no. 3-Insurance Company has filed its written statement denying that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver and took plea that accident might have caused due to contributory negligence on the part of truck driver. It also took plea that it cannot be said for want of documents that at the time of accident drivers of vehicles in question were having valid driving licence. Opposite party no. 4 has filed written statement alleging therein that at the time of accident he was neither the registered owner of Tractor No. UP-25/3516 nor the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of his truck. He was registered owner of truck in question till 3.2.1996 and thereafter he sold the tractor to Chaudari Sanjay Singh, hence, he was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues and decreed the claim petition in favour of claimants vide order dated 15.01.2005 and awarded compensation of Rs. 89,500/- to the claimants, payable by Insurance Company, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of presentation of petition till the date of payment of compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of deceased at Rs. 2000/- per month, instead of Rs. 21,000/- per month as claimed by the claimants. He has also disputed the multiplier and interest on the awarded compensation as adopted by the learned Tribunal. Perusal of record shows that PW-1 Sudhanshu Sarkar, son of the deceased has stated that deceased had five acre of land and he also used to cultivate on the land taken on contract. It has been alleged on behalf of Insurance Company that claimants/appellants no. 2 and 3 are the major sons of deceased and the land which was with the deceased is now with them and they are yielding income from the said land. Hence, they have not suffered any loss of income due to death of their father. The learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that the income of the deceased as claimed by the claimants has been shown without having any basis, as the age of deceased shown in the post mortem report is 70 years and in this age the income of deceased as Rs. 21,000/- per month is not possible. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- per month, which appears to be justified. As per the evidence available on record, it is clear that no certificate was produced by the claimants to prove the age of deceased, rather PW-1 Sudhanshu Sarkar has stated in his statement that at the time of accident in question the age of deceased was 54 years whereas the age of deceased was mentioned in the post mortem report as 70 years. The Tribunal was right in accepting the age of deceased as 70 years as no certificate was produced by the claimants to prove the age of deceased. The Tribunal has also adopted the multiplier of ‘5’ which also appears to be justified. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 89,500/- as compensation in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find it a fit case for enhancement of compensation. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is confirmed. (B. C. Kandpal, J.) SP