IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 777 of 2006 U.P.S.R.T.C. … Appellant Vs Smt. Seema Khanna & others … Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Syed Nadim, learned counsel for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/U.P.S.R.T.C against the judgment and award dated 30.11.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/5th Fast Track Court, Dehradun whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,91,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case, according to the claim petition are that on 23.12.2003, Sukhbeer Khanna (deceased) was traveling in bus No. UP16Q/9704 and was going from Dehradun to Delhi for business purpose. At about 06:00 a.m., when the said bus reached at Sarahanpur, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, it dashed with the Trolley No. HR46/8425. The accident was so awful in which the conductor of the bus has died at the spot and Sri Sukhbeer Khanna sustained serious injuries. He was immediately admitted in the Government Hospital, Saharanpur from there he was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh and on the way he was died. At the time of the accident, he was 35 years of age and used to earn Rs. 2 12,000/- per month by doing the business of cosmetic and crockery. The claimants are the dependents upon the deceased and filed the claim petition for claiming Rs. 20,20,000/- as compensation. 3. Sri Johar Singh who was driving the said bus has filed objection before the Tribunal stating therein that the deceased was not traveling in the said bus. It has alleged that the accident not by the rash and negligent driving but the accident occurred due to fog and the wrong parking of another vehicle in question. He has stated that he was driving the bus vary cautiously and slowly. He has also submitted the photocopy of the driving licence. The opposite party No. 2 – U.P.S.R.T.C. also contested the claim petition by filing joint written statement with the opposite party No. 1 admitting the factum of accident, in which Sukhbeer Khanna was died. It has further submitted that on the date of accident, the bus in question was being driven by its driver cautiously. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed at a great length. Both the parties led the evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record allowed the claim petition to the tune of Rs. 7,91,500/- in favour of the claimants vide judgment and award dated 30.11.2004. 3 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/U.P.S.R.T.C. preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Syed Nadim, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the impugned judgment as well as going through the entire record available before me, I am of the view that the issue No. 1 relating to the rash and negligent has rightly been decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the statement of Rakesh Kumar (P.W.2) who was sitting inside the bus at the time of accident. He has stated that on the date of accident, it was foggy morning but the driver of the bus and driving the bus in a very rash and negligent manner. On the basis of this witness, the Tribunal. The Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record rightly held that the driver of the bus was responsible for the said accident. He was driving the bus in a very rash and negligent manner, due to which accident occurred. 8. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal in order to calculate the amount of compensation taken into account the income tax certificate for the last three years and after taking into account the facts of the case considered the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 69,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd on the same as personal expenses, it comes to Rs. 46,000/-. According to the claim petition as well as postmortem report, 4 the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of death and it is not disputed. The Tribunal further adopted the multiplier of ‘17’ in order to calculate the amount of compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal which is ‘17’ and alleged that the multiplier is on higher side. In order to support his submission, he placed before me the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Kalpana & others reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 94, T.N. State Transport Corporation Vs S. Rajapriya & others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 276 and The Managing Director, TNSTC Vs Sripriya & others reported in 2007 (5) Supreme 301. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Tribunal after considering the age of the deceased as well as table given under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act adopted the multiplier of ‘17’, which is just and proper. 11. After going through the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex court as well as keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of ‘13’ would be just and proper in this case. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal has certainly on higher side. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the deceased as well as 5 decision of Hon’ble Apex Court the multiplier could not have traveled more than ‘13’. 12. I am, therefore, of the view that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as ‘17’ is liable to be set aside and a multiplier of ‘13’ in this court would be just and proper. 13. As discussed above, the Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the entire material available on record considered the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 69,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses it comes to Rs. 46,000/- and using the multiplier of ‘13’, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 5,98,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, which does not require any interference. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 6,05,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment. 14. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 6,05,000/- instead of Rs. 7,91,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment. 15. The statutory amount deposited before this Court by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 6 (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 18.06.2008 ASWAL