THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 231 of 2008 Smt. Asharhi Devi and others …Appellants Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others ... Respondents Sri Pramod Bailwal, Advocate for appellant Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Dated: 29.06.2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) The claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli, vide Award dated 23.02.2008 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 24 of 2007. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.17,12,000/- for the death of Sulap Singh (deceased) in motor accident on 23.01.2007 when vehicle bearing registration No. U.P.07C-9944, in which he was travelling, met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver resulting in serious injuries to the deceased, who succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. The claimants pleaded that deceased Sulap Kumar used to earn Rs.11,000/- per month. The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner of the offending vehicle, though admitted the fact of the 2 accident, took the plea that at the time of accident vehicle in question was being driven by its driver- Girish Chandra Sati, who also died in the accident. It has also been alleged that driver of the vehicle was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and the said vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. It has further been alleged that all the papers of vehicle no. U.P.07C- 9944 were valid at the time of accident. The accident occurred due to sudden mechanical failure and as such, the claim petition filed by the claimants deserves to be dismissed. The insurer, on the other hand, pleaded that at the time of alleged accident offending vehicle was not having valid registration certificate, insurance policy, driving licence and permit and as such, this claim petition filed against it does not deserve to be allowed. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case. Parties led evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal having considered the entire evidence available on record as well as hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.3,09,500/- as compensation, against Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the claim petition, vide impugned judgment and award dated 23.02.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellants-claimants have preferred the present appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has also preferred Cross Objection bearing No. 4047/2008 against the said Award. Heard Sri Pramod Bailwal, learned counsel for appellants-claimants, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and perused the record. Sri Pramod Bailwal, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claimants’ evidence about the income of the deceased; in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,09,500/-; and in awarding interest at the lower rate of 5% per annum only. Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the Award and submitted that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding substantial compensation of Rs.3,09,500/- to the claimants. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal has dealt with this point while deciding issue no. 1 in the impugned judgment and award. While deciding the said issue, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the statement of PW-1, who has deposed that vehicle no. U.P.07C- 9944 met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver-Satish Chandra Sati, who also died in the said accident and in the accident deceased-Sulap Singh sustained injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The learned 4 Tribunal having considered the entire evidence adduced before it recorded the finding that on 23.01.2007 when deceased was travelling by vehicle U.P.07C-9944, it met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and in the accident deceased-Sulap Singh received severe injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on evidence produced on record and I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and the same is hereby affirmed. While deciding issue no. 2 as to whether vehicle in question was being plied in breach of policy conditions, the learned Tribunal recorded the finding that driver of offending vehicle was holding valid driving licence on the date of the accident and as such, the vehicle in question was not being plied in breach of policy conditions. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal also does not require any interference and the same is hereby affirmed. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the learned Tribunal has discussed this aspect while deciding issue no. 3 in the impugned judgment and award. The record reveals that as the evidence led by the claimants about the income of the deceased Sulap Singh was not found reliable by the Tribunal, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.30,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.30,000/- as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ dependency was assessed at Rs.20,000/- per annum. In my opinion, the 5 Tribunal has rightly assessed the claimants’ dependency at Rs.20,000/- per annum after deducting 1/3rd of it as the personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased was 45 years of age on the date of the accident; therefore, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly selected the multiplier of ‘15’ in this case. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.20,000/- with the multiplier of ‘15’, the compensation was worked out to Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,500/- under other heads and thus, a total sum of Rs.3,09,500/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of Sulap Singh in the motor accident, which, in my view, appears to be a just and proper amount of compensation. The rate of interest also indicated in the impugned judgment and award needs no interference. As I do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation either on account of the income of the deceased or the claimants’ dependency assessed by the Tribunal or the multiplier selected, the appeal, filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is hereby confirmed. Cross objection filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. also stands dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP