IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 180/2007 U.P.S.R.T.C. ….. Appellant. Versus Ganga Ram Chauhan & others .. Respondents. Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri R.K.S. Verma, learned counsel for respondent/ claimants Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Dated: 22-04-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has been preferred by U.P.S.R.T.C. against the judgment and award dated 14-2-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Haridwar, in MACT Case No. 29/2005, Ganga Ram Chauhan Vs. Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. and another. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 4-8- 2004, at about 8 A.M. Smt. Ram Rati was travelling in Jeep No. U.P. 07/K-9273 and near Midway Hotel at Rishikesh Haridwar Road, Bus No. U.P. 15/Q- 9705 dashed the said jeep in a rash and negligent manner, due to which Smt. Ram Rati sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The deceased at the time of accident was 62 years of age and her monthly income was Rs. 6,000/-. The claimant filed claim petition for compensation in lieu of death of Smt. Ramrami. 3- The opposite party/owner of the offending jeep filed his written statement and denied the 2 allegations made in the claim petition. He also alleged that the accident was caused by the driver of Bus No. 15/Q-9705 and his jeep was insured with opposite party/New India Assurance Company and the liability if any is there, the same is upon the shoulder of the insurance company. 4- The New India Assurance Company, insurer of the offending jeep, also filed written statement and alleged that the accident was caused by the driver of Bus No. U.P. 15/Q-9705 and the jeep bearing registration No. U.P. 07/K-9273 was not being plied with valid documents at the time of the accident. 5- The tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, against the U.P.S.R.T.C. 6- Feeling aggrieved, the U.P.S.R.T.C. has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- So far as the factum of accident is concerned, the learned tribunal has dealt with this question while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2. The 3 tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that on the basis of the F.I.R., charge sheet, as well as the evidence of witnesses adduced in the petition, the accident was occurred due to the sole rash and negligence of the driver of Bus No. U.P. 15/Q-9705 and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of jeep involved in the accident. P.W.2, Mohabat Ali, driver of the offending jeep has deposed that the Bus driver dashed his jeep on wrong side in a rash and negligent manner. Copy of site-plan prepared by the police during investigation of criminal case has been filed on record as paper No. 27-C/2, which reveals that the jeep was going on its side from Haridwar to Dehradun, whereas the Bus was going to Haridwar from Rishikesh and the bus travelled on wrong side at the place of accident and dashed with the jeep. The report of the accident was lodged by the driver of the jeep on the day of the accident and the police after investigation has filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending Bus. Therefore, in view of the material available on record, the learned tribunal has rightly held that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of the driver of the Bus involved in the accident. 9- As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant is concerned, the tribunal has dealt with this point while deciding issue No.4 in the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal has fell in error in calculating the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-. It has although been pleaded in the claim petition that the claimant had been earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month at the time of accident but no cogent 4 and reliable evidence has been adduced by the claimant in order to support this contention. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, notional income is to be taken into consideration. The accident took place on 4.8.2004, therefore, keeping in view the judgment pronounced by the Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Sobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company and another ( decided on 1.11.2006), the notional income of the deceased is to be reckoned as Rs. 36,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the financial dependency of the claimant upon the deceased comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 65 years, therefore, the multiplier of ‘5’ as has been adopted by the tribunal, appears to be justified. After calculating the amount of compensation by the multiplier of ‘5’ the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 24,000/- X 5 = Rs.1,20,000/-. The other amount awarded by the tribunal under different heads, i.e. Rs. 5,000/- shall remain intact. Therefore, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-= Rs. 1,25,000/-. 10- On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 11- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimant/respondent is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation from the U.P.S.R.T.C. along with the interest 5 indicated in the impugned award, instead of Rs. 2,45,000/-, as has been awarded by the tribunal. 12- Out of the awarded amount of compensation, i.e. Rs. 1,25,000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, shall be deposited in fixed deposit in the name of the claimant in some nationalized bank for a period of five years and the balance amount shall be paid to the claimant in cash. 13- Let the statutory amount of compensation deposited with this court at the time of filing the appeal, be remitted to the tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB