IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 234 of 2007 Smt. Shyam Dulari alias Sam Dulari W/O Late Shri Bhisham Singh and five others. … Appellants. Versus Atul Kumar Singh S/O Shri P.N.Singh and four others. … Respondents. Mr. R.P.Nautiyal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants. Mr. T.A.Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-New India Assurance Company. Date July 11, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the impugned award dated 9-12-2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Dehradun (for short the Tribunal), whereby the claimant-appellants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and payable by the opposite party-respondent no.2-New India Assurance Company, with whom the vehicle in question was insured as mentioned in the impugned award. Relevant facts, giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellants-claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 7,10,000/- before the Tribunal alleging therein that Bhim Singh alias Bhim Ram (since deceased), the husband of the claimant-appellant no. 1 lost his life in a motor vehicle accident involving Bus No. UP 06- 0012, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. According to the claimants, the deceased was going on Tractor No. U.P. 12C-2989 on 8-11-2002. At 8.10 p.m. when the said Tractor reached near toll barrier at Haridwar bye-pass road, the offending bus hit the tractor with the result that Bhim Singh alias Bhim Ram 2 and other persons suffered grievous injuries. Bhim Singh and one other person Doda died on the spot. The offending bus was insured with O.P. No. 1 Atul Kumar Singh and the same was duly insured with the O.P.No.2-New India Assurance Company. The O.P.No. 3Sunil Chandra is the driver of the offending bus. It has also been alleged that the O.P.No. 4 Harpreet Singh is the owner of the tractor and O.P.No. 5-Balendra Singh is the driver thereof, but they were not at fault. The tractor was stranded on Kuchcha side of the road at the time of accident. The claimants also alleged that the deceased was earning Rs. 3500/- from his employment with Bharat Traders and he was aged 35 years at the time of his accidental death. The opposite parties filed their written statement and contested the claim petition on different grounds mentioned in their written statements. The owner of the offending bus denied the facts of the case and pleaded that the bus itself was hit by the tractor and that there was no negligence by the driver of the bus in question. The Insurance Company of the bus filed its written statement and pleaded that the driver of tractor No. UP-12C-2989 had no valid licence and the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of tractor trolley. The driver of the bus-O.P. No.3 has taken almost the same pleas as taken by the opposite party no.1. The O.P.Nos. 4 and 5, owner and driver of tractor trolley filed their joint written statement and asserted that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus and that there was no negligence oh the part of the driver of tractror trolley. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues in the case. The learned Tribunal recorded the evidence led by the parties and heard them. The learned Tribunal took Issue Nos. 1, 4 and 5 together for decision. The learned Tribunal has held that the accident in question occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver and at the time of accident, the tractor trolley was being used for agriculture purposes and that there was no fault on the part of 3 the driver of the tractor trolley. The learned Tribunal on Issue No. 3 has held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the driver of the offending bus was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. On Issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal has held that there is no proof of income of the deceased, therefore, the notional income was taken at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month, i.e. Rs. 18000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency was assessed at Rs. 12,000/-. The Tribunal found that the deceased was aged 35 years and after applying multiplier of 10, compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards loss of dependency. Each of the six dependents of the deceased has been awarded Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection. Ultimately, compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants against the Insurance Company by the impugned award. Aggrieved by the impugned award, this appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. It is pertinent to mention here that no cross-objection or appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company in this appeal against the impugned award. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants have argued this appeal only on the point that the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4th towards the personal expenses, as it has not been disputed before the Tribunal that the claimant nos.1 to 6 are the dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and not in conformity with the settled law. In support of his arguments reliance has been placed on the law laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009(3) Supreme, 487]. 4 I have perused the original record of the claim petition and have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra). In paragraph no. 14, the Apex Court has held that where the dependents of the deceased are between 4 to 6, deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/4th. In the case at In that case, the deceased has left behind him six dependents to survive, therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses shall be 1/4th and not 1/3rd as has been done in the impugned award. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has held that the age of the deceased was 35 but the multiplier of 10 has been applied to work out the loss of dependency. In view of the law laid down in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma, appropriate multiplier for the age group of 30-35 years is 16. For the reasons and discussion above, the impugned award deserves to be modified to the above extent. Accordingly, the personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/4th of Rs. 18000 = 4,500/- and the annual loss of dependency of the deceased would come to Rs. 13,500 –00 and by applying multiplier of 16, total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 13,500/- x 16 = 2,16,000-00. The claimant-appellants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 2,16,000-00 instead of Rs. 1,20,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The claimant-appellants shall also be entitled to amount of Rs. 5,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants-appellants comes to 2,46,000/-. So far as the interest part is concerned, the Tribunal has passed conditional order that in case the compensation is not paid within a period of two months, the claimants shall get interest @ 9% per annum, which is not proper. In my view, considering the bank rate of interest at the relevant period, the claimant-appellants 5 shall get simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 24-12-2002 till the date of payment. For the reasons and discussion above, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 9-12-2004 is modified to the extent that the claimant- appellants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,46,000/- (Rupees two lakhs forty-six thousand) payable by the respondent no.2-Insurance Company, instead of Rs. 1,50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant-appellants shall also be entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from 24-12-2002 till the date of payment. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP