IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 113 of 2004 Date of decision : 24.6.2008 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant. Versus Jyoti Angrish and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. No. 1 to 3. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharmshala dated 7.1.2004 whereby he has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,84,552/- in favour of the claimants. The claimants are the widow and children of deceased Shri Bhim Dutt. On 25.3.2000 Shri Bhim Dutt was traveling on a Scooter at Panchayat Ghar near Dari. One van bearing No. HP-02-4900 came from Sheela side and overtook the scooter. Thereafter, the van suddenly stopped and the driver reversed the van. Though the deceased Bhim Dutt stopped his scooter but 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 he fell down from the scooter and received injury. Bhim Dutt died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It stands proved that the accident did take place. It is also not disputed that the salary of the deceased was Rs.12,932/- per month. Only the Insurance Company contested the claim petition. Since the owner and driver of the van did not appear to contest the claim the Insurance Company was given permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim on all grounds. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the van driver. Compensation of Rs.6,84,552/- was awarded in favour of the claimants. This award is under challenge on two grounds, firstly, that the claimants have failed to prove the negligence of the driver of the Van and secondly that amount of compensation is on the higher side. With regard to the negligence, the case of the claimants was supported by Shri Pancham Chand who appeared as PW-3. According to him, he was standing near the Panchayat Ghar Dari on 25.3.2000. He saw maruti van, in question, came from Sheela Chok side at a high speed. The van overtook the scooter. Thereafter, the van driver applied the brakes and started reversing 3 and in this process hit the scooter rider. The driver of the van Shri Parveen Kumar did not contest the claim. He, however, appeared as RW-2. He was examined by the Insurance Company. He in his cross-examination admitted the fact that he was coming from Yol side and the Scooter rider was just behind him. He also admits that when he reached Dari Bazar, he tried to stop the vehicle and started reversing the same with the result scooter rider struck against the van. From the above facts, it is apparent that the van was going in front of the Scooter. It appears to have been stopped suddenly without any signal and the van driver started reversing the same without ensuring that anybody was behind the van. Therefore, the negligence is writ large and the findings of the learned Tribunal call for no interference. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the income of the deceased was Rs.12,932/- per month, i.e. almost Rs.13,000/- per month.The learned Tribunal has taken the dependency of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month for the first three years and Rs.4,000/- for the next seven years. The arguments on behalf of the Insurance Company is that in all multiplier of 10 has been used which is on the higher side, keping in view that the deceased was above 55 years. In fact, the 4 system followed by the tribunal was not correct. The dependency cannot be split into two parts, i.e. pre retirement and post retirement. The income was Rs.12,932/- per month. If 1/3rd is deducted for personal expenses of the deceased the net balance amount income which could be in the form of saving as well as the amount spent on the family members works out to Rs.8,665/- per month (say Rs.1,03,980/- per month). Even if a multiplier of 6 and 7 years is applied the compensation works out to almost the same amount as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the award passed. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and which is accordingly dismissed. 24th June, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™