IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 78 of 2006 Smt. Firdoosh Jahan & others … Appellants Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others … Respondents Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for appellants Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Dated: June 10, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 10.11.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge-I, Udham Singh Nagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 33 of 2004, Smt. Firdoosh Jahan and others versus Sri Deepak Balauria and another. The claimants-Smt. Firdoosh Jahan and others filed claim petition before Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of death of deceased-Mohd. Shafique in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants, on 12.11.2003 at 12.01 p.m. when deceased Mohd. Shafique was coming back to his home from Nanakmatta and he was standing near Bidora Gate towards his side near his motorcycle, suddenly driver of Maruti Car bearing Registration No. D.L. A.C.A.-6310 came from the side of Sitarganj rashly and dashed the deceased-Mohd. Shafique resulting in multiple serious injuries to the deceased. The deceased was taken in Primary Health Centre Sitarganj, 2 wherefrom he was referred to Bareilly. Thereafter deceased was shifted to Bhojipura Rammoorti Hospital where he was declared dead. The deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month from agriculture and supply of bricks. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. The opposite party no. 1-Sri Deepak Balauria filed his written statement and alleged that he had no concern with the offending vehicle in question on the date of accident. He has further alleged that he transferred the offending vehicle in question in the name of his brother-in-law Ishwar Dutt Brajwasi. Thereafter, Ishwar Dutt Brajwasi sold the said vehicle to Sri Yogendra Singh son of Sri Narayan Singh with the consent of Sri Deepak Balauria and Sri Yogendra Singh thereafter sold the said vehicle to Sri Naeem Ansari son of Sri Saleem Ansari. He has further alleged that Sri Firoz Ansari who is the son of Sri Saleem Ansari and was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and owner of vehicle Sri Saleem Ansari are liable to pay compensation. The said offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident, therefore, the answering opposite party has no concern with the said claim. The opposite party no. 3-United India Insurance Company Limited filed its written statement alleging therein that that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. 3 The opposite party no. 2-Naeem Ansari, inspite of sufficient service of notice upon him, did not contest the claim. Hence, an order was passed on 1.6.2005 to proceed exparte against opposite party no. 2. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal after having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition in favour of claimants for a sum of Rs.1,89,500/- payable by United India Insurance Company Ltd. The Tribunal also directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid by opposite party no. 3-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. within a period of thirty days, failing which, an interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable to the claimants from the date of claim petition till the date of actual payment of compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the claimants-appellants have filed this appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 1-insurance company and perused the record. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award thoroughly. The Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, held that the deceased- 4 Mohd. Shafique died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.11.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle; and the insurer of the offending vehicle was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the record of the case reveals that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. As no plausible and cogent evidence could be adduced by the claimants in order to show the actual income of the deceased, therefore, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd out of it towards personal expenses of the deceased the annual dependency of the claimants has been worked out as Rs.10,000/- per annum. The approach adopted by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in A.O. No. 326 of 2005, Smt. Basanti Devi and others vs. Naresh Rangar and others, decided on 16.11.2006, in which the notional income has been taken into consideration as Rs.30,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd out of it total annual income has taken into consideration a sum of Rs.20,000/- as annual dependency of the claimants. In case, if the principle laid down in the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court is adopted in the instant case, then the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.20,000/- per annum. The 5 record further reveals that the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident and after adopting the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi & others vs. Mohammad Tabbar & another, decided on 25th March, 2008, in Appeal (Civil) No. 2090 of 2008, the multiplier in the instant case cannot travel more than ‘15’. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as ‘18’ appears to be on higher side and is liable to be set aside. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, I come to the conclusion that the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants comes to Rs.20,000 x 15=Rs.3,00,000/-, along with an interest indicated by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under other different heads is to remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-- (Rupees Three Lacs only), as compensation, instead of Rs.1,89,500/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal . (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 6