IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 438 of 2006 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur & others … Appellants Versus Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar & another … Respondents Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate on behalf of Sri B.S. Parihar, Advocate for appellants Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for respondents Dated: August 28, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2005 and decree dated 11.04.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III A.D.J., Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. 216 of 2003, Smt. Charanjeet Kaur & others vs. S.S.P. Udham Singh Nagar and another. The claimants filed a claim petition before Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of death of deceased-Banta Singh in a motor accident alleging therein that on 3.8.2003 deceased was going to Kashipur from Barhaini by motorcycle and when he reached near Potato Farm at Bazpur Road at about 9.15 p.m., an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. U.A.06A/0034 coming from Bazpur side rashly and negligently and without having dipper dashed the motorcycle from the opposite direction, due to which deceased and Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, who was sitting as a pillion rider, sustained grievous injuries on their person 2 and deceased-Banta Singh died on the way to hospital. It has also been alleged that deceased was 37 years of age at the time of his death and he was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month from the job of tractor driver and cultivation. The opposite parties contested the claim by filing their written statements and pleaded that deceased had two acre of land on which he used to cultivate and employer of deceased has wrongly been mentioned and salary of deceased was not Rs.7000/- per month rather it was Rs.1000/- per month. They admitted the factum of damage of motorcycle in the accident. In the additional pleas, it has been pleaded that vehicle in question i.e. Hero Honda Don motorcycle was not got registered by deceased-Banta Singh and the said vehicle dashed the Government vehicle Ambassador Car No. U.A.- 06A/0034 by coming on wrong side rashly and negligently. It has further been pleaded that deceased-Banta Singh was habitual to drive the vehicle rashly and negligently in drunken state. It has also been pleaded that on technical inspection of vehicle in question it was found that brake system of vehicle was not fit. It has also been pleaded that Inspector General of Police, Uttaranchal Dehradun has not been made party by claimants, on account of which claim petition filed by claimants is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Therefore, the claim petition filed by claimants is liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The 3 learned Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.3,19,000/- along with interest of 6% per annum, vide judgment and award dated 04.04.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellants-claimants have preferred the present appeal which has been placed before me for final disposal. Heard Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.S. Parihar, leaned counsel for appellants- claimants, Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has confined his argument to this aspect that amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is meager and it is liable to be enhanced by this Court. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Ambassador Car No. U.A.06A/0034. The said finding had not been challenged by the insurance company, as such, it has attained the finality as no appeal has been filed by the insurance company. Perusal of record reveals that the said finding does not require any interference. The reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal are cogent and clear. I am completely in agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving of vehicle 4 i.e. Ambassador Car No. U.A.06A/0034 at the time of accident. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the record reveals that claimants stated that deceased at the time of accident used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month from the job of driver and cultivation and in support of his statement with regard to income of deceased claimants filed copy of Khatauni of village Haripura, Barhaini and Hulsanganj and alleged to have mentioned two acre of land and used to earn Rs.3500/- from the cultivation of the said land. The claimants produced Sri Pahalwan Singh, owner of tractor in question, as PW-3, who stated in his deposition that deceased had been working as driver on tractor in question on contract basis w.e.f. 05.01.2002 to 03.08.2003 and this witness also filed registration certificate of the said tractor. As far as evidence with regard to income of deceased is concerned, the claimants did not produce any cogent and reliable evidence in this regard which may show that what was the exact income of deceased from cultivation. PW-3 has been produced by the claimants and he did not file any salary certificate and denied the factum of any written document of salary of deceased in his possession. This witness further stated that he had never engaged the deceased permanently rather he used to call the deceased-driver as and when any need occurs and used to give a sum of Rs.900/- in lieu of work taken at a time from him. Thus, the Tribunal did not take into account the income of deceased as Rs.3500/- per month. The Tribunal in absence of any cogent evidence with regard to monthly income 5 of deceased, has taken into consideration the monthly income of Rs.2600/- i.e. Rs.31200/- per annum from agricultural land. The finding recorded by Tribunal in this regard appears to be justified and needs no interference. By deducting 1/3rd of the said amount as personal expenses of deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.20,800/- per annum. The claimants stated in the claim petition that age of deceased was 37 years at the time of accident, whereas claimant PW-1 Smt. Chiranjeet Kaur stated in her deposition that age of deceased was 35 years at the time of accident and as per post mortem report also the age of deceased was about 35 years, but no evidence has been adduced by the claimants in this regard. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the age of deceased between 40-45 years, at the time of accident and in view of schedule prescribed in Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, selected the multiplier of ‘15’ on the said age group. By multiplying the above amount of Rs.20,800/- with multiplier of ‘15’, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,12,000/- to the claimants. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of deceased and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount of compensation was also awarded from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. The Tribunal, in my opinion, has not committed any illegality in calculating the amount of compensation. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by 6 the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 04.04.2005 is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP