IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 364 of 2005 Nathu Lal & others … Appellants Versus Teka Ram & others … Respondents Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate, for appellants Sri Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate, for respondent no. 2 Dated: April 10, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both the parties have agreed that the matter be heard finally. Therefore, I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2005, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 84/2003, Nathu Lal & others vs. Tika Ram & others. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants-Nathu Lal and others filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for the grant of compensation on account of death of deceased-Jas in a motor vehicle accident on 3.3.2003 at 10.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Truck No. D.L. 1G-3713, while deceased was returning after loading the sand over the truck from Koshinagar Sultanpur Patti Circle. The claimants have pleaded that at the time of accident deceased was 19 years of age and used to earn Rs.4000/- per month by working in a private firm. The claimants filed claim petition for a sum of Rs.22,58,000/- as compensation, jointly and severally, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment of compensation. The opposite party no. 2-insurance appellant has filed written statement and alleged that the cheque by which insurance premium was paid had been dishonoured by the Bank due to insufficient fund in the account and it had been informed to the opposite party no. 1, the owner of the vehicle. The driver of the truck had no valid driving licence and the vehicle had no valid registration, fitness and permit. It has further pleaded that since there is no cover note at the time of alleged date of accident, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the third party as contemplated under Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the material available before it and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,68,800/- as compensation, in favour of claimants, payable by opposite party no. 1-onwer of the vehicle, along with an interest @ 9% per annum. The Tribunal also directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid by opposite party no. 1-onwer of the vehicle within a period of two months, failing which, opposite party no. 1 shall have to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till its payment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the claimants-appellants have preferred the appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- per month, whereas the witnesses have stated the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7000/- per month, therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly calculate the compensation on a lesser income of the deceased, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2- insurnace company also filed cross objection and alleged that the cheque issued by the owner of the Truck in respect of premium of the insurance was dishonoured by Punjab National Bank and company had informed the owner about the dishonourment of the cheque and the policy was cancelled on 10.5.2002, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not held liable to pay the compensation by the insurance company. From perusal of the impugned award it is quite clear that the liability of compensation was fixed on the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company was exonerated from the liability, therefore, the cross objection filed by insurance company has no meaning in the instant case. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants have come up with the case that the deceased was labourer. No income certificate of the deceased has been filed and in the above circumstances the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- as the deceased was treated as a labourer and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly dependency of the claimants upon the deceased comes to about Rs.1332/- and the annual dependency of Rs.16,800/- has rightly been calculated. The deceased was 19 years of age and Tribunal has adopted multiplier of ‘16’, the total dependency after adopting multiplier of ‘16’ has been assessed at Rs.2,68,800/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of final payment of compensation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the claimants have not been able to prove their case for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased, he being the labourer and particularly in absence of any proof of income given by the claimants. Therefore, the claim has rightly been awarded by the Tribunal and the same does not require any interference. For the reasons stated above, the appeal and cross objection filed by opposite party no. 2 lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, is confirmed. The cross objection filed by opposite party no. 2 is also dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP