IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 408 of 2006 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation …. Appellant. Versus Kishan Lal Kapoor & another …Respondents. Sri V.K. Bisht, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, Advocate for appellant. Sri Nanak Chand Gupta, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Dated: 03-07-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./F.T.C. Vth/A.D.J. Dehradun, in M.A.C.P. No. 202 of 2005, Sri Kishan Lal Kapoor vs. Hari Singh & others. Brief facts of the case as per the claim petition are that on 16.2.2003 when claimant-Kishan Lal Kapoor along with friend Ganesh Singh was going on Scooter No. U.P.07C-9978 as pillion rider, from I.D.P.L. towards Rishikesh, near Kali Ki Dal Bus No. U.P.07C-4753 of Rishikesh Depot, being driven by opposite party no. 1-Hari Singh rashly and negligently, hit the scooter, due to which the claimant sustained injuries and his treatment is still going on. The claimant alleged that Rs.1,50,000/- has been expended over his treatment uptil now and Rs.1,00,000/- is expected to be incurred on his future treatment. The claimant at the time of accident was 40 years of age and used to earn Rs.4500/- by running tea stall. 2 The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite party no. 3-Uttaranchal Transport Corporation filed written statement and pleaded that driver of scooter wrongly overtook and by colliding with Vikram collided from rear side of Bus, in which scooterist sustained nominal injuries. It has further been pleaded that accident took placed due to rash and negligence of scooterist and owner and insurer of scooter were not made party in the claim petition, therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of party and claimant is not entitled to get any compensation. The claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 learned 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.4,12,347/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. The Tribunal further directed that amount payable to the claimant shall be paid by opposite parties no. 2 and 3, vide judgment and award dated 27.04.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-Uttaranchal Transport Corporation has preferred the appeal before this Court. 3 Heard Sri V.K. Bisht, senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, Advocate for appellant, Sri Nanak Chand Gupta, Advocate for respondent no. 1 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 claimant sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 16.02.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Bus No. U.P.07C-4753. The Tribunal held liable opposite parties no. 2 and 3-Uttaranchal Transport Corporation to pay compensation to the claimant. 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 paid in favour of claimant is concerned, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘15’ and to my view it appears to be reasonable and does not require any interference. However, the Tribunal has committed mistake in the calculation of total amount to be paid in favour of claimant keeping in view his permanent disability upto an extent of 35%. The amount of compensation after adopting the multiplier of ‘15’ has been assessed at Rs.5,40,000/-, but on calculating this amount on the basis of permanent disability suffered by the claimant upto an extent of 35% the amount has been directed to be paid by the Tribunal for 65% disability and not for 35% disability. In case, if the calculation is made keeping in view the disability of the claimant as 35%, then the amount of compensation to be paid in favour of claimant 4 comes to Rs.1,89,000/- (instead of Rs.3,51,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal). Rest of the amount awarded by the Tribunal in favour of claimant under other different heads appears to be just and reasonable and does not require any interference. The total amount of compensation thus on the basis of calculation made by this Court comes to Rs.1,89,000/- + Rs.41,347/- (for medical expenses) + Rs.10,000/- (for mental agony) + Rs.10,000/- (for future medical expenses)=Rs.2,50,347/- (rounded Rs.2,50,400/-). The rate of interest on the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to an extent that amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant is Rs.2,50,400/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Four Hundred), along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment (instead of Rs.4,12,347/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal). The amount deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. In case, if the excess amount has been deposited by the appellant, the same shall be refuted to appellant. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP