IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A. O. NO. 252 OF 2006 Parmi Singh and two others .. Appellants. Vs. Ravindra Singh and another … Respondents. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.K. Sah, Advocate for the respondent/National Ins. Co. Dated: 24-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 8-3-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ District Judge, U.S. Nagar, in MACT Case No. 174 of 2004. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 30-6-2004, Smt. Harko Devi along with her husband and other relatives was travelling in Bus No. D.O. 1-P-7514 from Ram Nagar and the said bus was hit with a tree due to the rash and negligence of its driver. The passengers inside the bus sustained injuries and Smt. Harko Devi died at the spot instantaneously due to the injuries. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased preferred the claim petition. 3- The Opposite Party No.1 did not contest the case in spite of sufficient service, hence the case was heard exparte against him. The Opposite Party No.2 Insurance Company filed its written statement and denied the allegations made in the petition. The Insurance Company denied the rash and negligence on the part of the Bus driver in the accident and also alleged that the driver of the bus was not having valid driving license. 2 4- The Tribunal framed issues in the petition. Thereafter, claimants adduced evidence. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 37,500/- as compensation payable by National Insurance Company. 5- Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement. 6- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7- Perusal of record reveals that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligence of the bus driver. The claimants have examined P.W.1, Phool Singh and P.W.2, Dharam Singh. Both these witnesses were travelling in the offending bus and they have alleged that the driver was driving the bus at a high speed. He was cautioned by the passengers not to drive the vehicle at high speed, but he did not pay any heed to their requests and the vehicle met with accident. There is not evidence on record on behalf of the opposite parties so as to rebut the statement of these eye witnesses. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly arrived at the finding that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver. The driving license of the driver has also been filed before the Tribunal and the same was found to be valid at the time of accident. The bus was insured with National Insurance Company, therefore, the insurer has rightly been held liable to pay the amount of compensation. The finding of the Tribunal on this point do not require any interference. 3 8- As far as the compensation is concerned, it appears to me that the Tribunal has adopted the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum, which appears to be on lower side in view of the observation made by the Divisional Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2005,Shobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company and another, decided on 1.11.2006. Therefore the notional income of the deceased in the instant case is to be assessed as Rs. 36,000/- per annum due to price hike and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual financial dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The deceased at the time of her death was aged about 52 years. The Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of ‘5’ and I also adopt the multiplier of ‘5’ in this case on the annual dependency of the claimants. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 24,000/- X 5 = 1,20,000/-. 9- For the aforesaid reason the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 10- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 8-3-2006 is modified upto the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of final payment, instead of Rs. 37,500/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB