IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 247 of 2005 1- Smt. Deveshwari Devi, W/o Shri Raje Singh 2- Raje Singh S/o Late Shri Shishupal Singh, Both R/o Village Bartoli, Patwari Circle Srikot, Tehsil Karanprayag, District Chamoli … Appellants Versus 1- National Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office at Rajpur Mor, Haridwar, District Haridwar 2- Dinesh Lal S/o Shri B. Lal, R/o Village Kaladhungi, Patwari Circle Gairsain, Tehsil Gairsain, District Chamoli 3- Matbar Singh S/o Shri Kunwar Singh, R/o Village Bartoli, Patwari Circle Srikot, Tehsil Karanprayag, District Chamoli 4- Narain Singh, S/o Shri Yashwant Singh, R/o Village Khalyun (Bartoli) Patwari Circle Srikot, Tehsil Karanprayag, District Chamoli … Respondents Sri D.C.S. Rawat, holding brief of Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellants Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 Dated: April 4, 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 11.3.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli, in M.A.C.C. No. 57 of 2004, Smt. Deveshwari Devi & another vs. national Insurance Company Ltd. & others. The claimants-Smt. Deveshwari Devi and another preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation on account of death of their daughter-Km. Anita @ Sunita in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants, on 25.6.2004 when deceased-Km. Anita @ Sunita was going from Dugadda to Gauchar through Vehicle No. U.A. 07- E-0140, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, met with the accident near Srikot Bangla, due to which deceased-Km. Anita @ Sunita sustained serious injuries on her person. The deceased was treated in Public Health Centre, Karanprayag, but she succumbed to her injuries sustained in the accident and post mortem of deceased was conducted at District Hospital, Gopeshwar. The claimants thus claimed for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation. The opposite party no. 1-insurance company has filed written statement refuting the contents of the claim petition. It has pleaded that the vehicle was being plied against the terms and conditions of the insurance company and at the time of accident registration, fitness, permit, insurance policy, pollution control certificate of the vehicle in question were not valid, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, if any. The opposite party no. 2-Sri Dinesh Lal filed written statement refuting the contents of claim petition and stated that he has already sold Vehicle No. U.A. 07-E-0140 and at the time of accident all papers of vehicle were valid. The vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. He also stated that accident occurred due to technical fault in the vehicle. The vehicle was being plied by its driver carefully and according to traffic rules. Insurance Company is liable to pa compensation, if any. The opposite party no. 3-Sri Matbar Singh filed written statement refuting the contents of the claim petition and stated that he purchased Vehicle No. U.A. 07-E- 0140 from opposite party no. 2-Dinesh Lal and opposite party no. 2 is the registered owner of vehicle in question. At the time of accident all the papers of vehicle were valid and vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. He also stated that accident occurred due to technical fault in the vehicle. The vehicle was being plied by its driver carefully and according to traffic rules and therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, if any. The opposite party no. 4-Sri Narayan Singh filed written statement supporting the contents made by opposite party no. 3 and pleaded that at the time of accident all the papers of vehicle were valid and the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. 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 material available before it and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 77,000/- as compensation, in favour of claimants, against opposite party no. 1- National Insurance Company Limited, along with an interest of 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment of compensation. The Tribunal also directed the National Insurance Company Ltd. to deposit the said amount of compensation within a period of one month from the date of the judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court. Heard Sri D.C.S. Rawat, holding brief of Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding lump sum of an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation without discussing the evidence adduced, therefore, the amount of compensation should be enhanced by this Court. From the perusal of impugned award it reveals that Deveshwari Devi has been produced as PW-1. This witness has stated in her deposition that on 25.6.2004 when deceased-Km. Anita @ Sunita was going from Dugadda to Gauchar through Vehicle No. U.A. 07-E-0140, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, met with the accident near Srikot Bangla, due to which deceased-Km. Anita @ Sunita sustained serious injures on her person and succumbed to injuries at P.H.C., Karanprayag. This witness stated in cross examination that she herself did not see the accident. Opposite parties have produced two witnesses as DW-1 and DW-2, who have stated in their deposition that at the time of accident offending vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. and was holding valid papers. The Tribunal having considered the entire evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Vehicle No. U.A. 07-E-0140, which was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased. Hence, in my opinion, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Vehicle No. U.A. 07-E-0140 and insurance company, who is insurer of offending vehicle, is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the record reveals that age of the deceased was 16 years on the basis of post mortem report at the time of her death. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased had been earning Rs. 2000/- per month from knitting and sewing work, but no evidence has been adduced by the claimants in this regard. Therefore, the Tribunal has not awarded the amount on the basis of earning of the deceased but has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. I do not find any substance in the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal in awarding of the compensation in lump sum in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding as to what is the basis for awarding the lump sum amount in favour of claimants. In case, if no evidence could be adduced by the claimants in order to show the actual income of the deceased, then the formula of notional income would certainly be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No doubt, the deceased was an unmarried girl, therefore, for calculating the amount of compensation the age of the parents would be material and in the instant case the age of parents of the deceased is 47 years and 50 years respectively. Therefore, in case, if I adopt the formula of notional income, it comes to Rs. 15,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 10,000/- per annum and keeping in view the age of the parents, multiplier of ‘10’ appears to be just and adequate. After adopting the multiplier of ‘10’ as well as keeping in view the annual financial dependency of the claimants, the total compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants, comes to Rs. 10,000/- x 10= Rs. 1,00,000/-. The impugned judgment and award is thus liable to be modified up to the extent that the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants should be Rs. 1,00,000/-, instead of Rs. 75,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. As far as amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘funeral expenses’ is concerned, the same does not require any interference. The interest as has been indicated in the award also does not require any interference. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), instead of Rs. 75,000/- as has been awarded by Tribunal, towards loss of dependency, along with the interest as has been indicated in the impugned award. Rest of the amount of a sum of Rs. 2000/-, which has been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘funeral expenses’, is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP