IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 445 of 2006 Zila Sahkari Vikas Sangh … Appellant Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others … Respondents Sri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for appellant Sri Pramod Bailwal, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: June 19, 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 2.5.2006 passed by M.A.C.T. Chamoli, in M.A.C. Case No. 32 of 2005, Smt. Ranna Bisht vs. Secretary & others. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.1.2005 claimant-Smt. Ranna Bisht along with her husband and son, was going towards District Hospital, Gopeshwar from Gopeshwar Main Bazar. When they reached near Simran Audio Centre, Police Line, Gopeshwar, a Truck bearing Registration No. U.S.Y.-3645 overturned due to rash and negligent driving of its driver-Madan Singh (opposite party no.2), with the result claimant sustained injuries on her person. The claimant was 35 years of age and used to earn Rs.100/- per day by working as labourer. The opposite party no. 1-Zila Sahkari Vikas Sangh and opposite party no. 2-Madan Singh are owner and driver of said offending vehicle at the time of accident. The opposite party no. 3-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was the insurer of 2 offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the claimed prayed that she may be awarded compensation by the opposite parties. The opposite party no. 1-Zila Sahkari Vikas Sangh-owner of offending vehicle filed written statement and admitted the factum of date, place and time of accident. He has stated that he is the owner of Vehicle No. U.S.Y.-3645 and at the time of accident the said vehicle was being plied by driver- Madan Singh having valid and effective driving licence. He has also pleaded that said vehicle was at the time of accident insured with opposite party no. 3-The Oriental Insurances Co. Ltd. and all the papers of said vehicle were valid at the time of accident. He has further pleaded that accident occurred due to mechanical failure in the vehicle and therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party no. 2-Madan Singh, driver of offending vehicle, inspite of sufficient service of notice upon him, did not contest the case and therefore the matter was proceeded exparte against him. The opposite party no. 3-insurance company filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition. It has pleaded that at the time of accident offending vehicle was not insured with it and registration certificate, insurance policy, driving licence and permit etc. relating to said vehicle were not valid. Hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 3 The Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition against opposite parties no. 1 & 2 and dismissed the same against opposite party no. 3- insurance company. The Tribunal directed opposite party no. 3-insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.88,000/- jointly or severally to the claimant within a period of one and half months, along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 02.05.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant-owner of vehicle has preferred this appeal before this Court. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for appellant-owner of vehicle, Sri Pramod Bailwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner of vehicle has submitted that learned Tribunal erred in holding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver-Madan Singh (respondent no. 3). He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly selected the multiplier of ‘15’ without any evidence with regard to age of claimant. 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 4 20.01.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Truck No. USY-3645; and the offending vehicle was not insured with opposite party no. 3-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident and therefore insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal held liable opposite parties no. 1 and 2 being owner and driver of offending vehicle to pay compensation. 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 awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the record reveals that the claimant submitted the medical bills amounting to Rs.4,500/-. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by claimant the Tribunal held that claimant must have purchased the medicines of the said amount. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,500/- for medical expenses of claimant, which appears to be justified. The claimant at the time of accident was 40 years of age. The claimant did not adduce any evidence with regard to his income, therefore, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the notional income of claimant as Rs.15000/- per annum. The claimant filed disability certificate in which the claimant has been held 42% disabled and he got fractured in pelvis region and humorous region. Thus, looking to the physique of claimant the Tribunal has held the disability of 30% of the claimant as just and proper. The Tribunal further held that due to this disability the claimant has lost 5 30% of his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has assessed the annual income of claimant at Rs.15,000 x 30%=Rs.4,500/- per annum which appears to be justified. The Tribunal selected the multiplier of ‘15’ for calculating the amount of compensation to the claimant for rest of his life, which appears to be just and proper. Thus, the claimant is entitled to get an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,500 x 15=Rs.67,500/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of notional income for a period of four months during which claimant had not done any work. The Tribunal also observed that claimant sustained injuries in pelvis region and hip joint, due to which she must have suffered mental and physical agony during treatment and awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of mental pain and agony, which also appears to be just and proper. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for mental and physical agony due to fracture in waist and joints of the claimant and a sum of Rs.1,000/- for transportation expenses incurred during medical treatment, which appears to be justified. Thus, the Tribunal rightly awarded a sum of Rs.88,000/- as compensation which needs no interference by this Court. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. The interest as awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award also appears to be just and proper. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 2.5.2006 is confirmed. The amount of compensation deposited with this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 7