IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 210 of 2006 Smt. Keshodevi … Appellant Vs Sri Jagjeet Singh & another … Respondents Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellant Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 18.08.2005 and decree dated 25.08.2005 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.09.2002, Sri Bhukan Singh (deceased) was going on his bicycle from Sarifnagar to Thakurdwara. When he reached near Sarifnagar-Thakurdwara Road, a bus No. UP21D/9102 coming from the opposite side, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased due to which he died at the spot. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 57 years of age and used to earn Rs. 1,40,000/- annually by rice mill as a partner. He was the only bread earner of the family. Therefore, the claimant filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- before the Tribunal as compensation. 2 3. Sri Jagjeet Singh – owner of the vehicle contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal concerned. It was alleged that the accident took place due to negligence of the cyclist. It has alleged that the driver of the bus was having the valid driving licence on the date of accident. It has further pleaded that the vehicle in question was insured with The New India Assurance Company Ltd., therefore, the compensation, if any, was liable to pay by the Insurance Company. 4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement. The amount of compensation is very exorbitant, therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. 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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of the claimant. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/claimant preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 7. Heard Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company and perused the record. 3 8. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the Tribunal on the basis of the statement made by Sri Vijaypal Singh (P.W.2) has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligence of the driver of the bus. She has stated that he was standing at Madarpur Nursery waiting for the bus for going to Thakurdwara. He has further stated that Bhukamb Singh was going on his bicycle to Thakurdwara suddenly, bus No. UP21D/9102 which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner hit the deceased due to which he died at the spot. He has also stated that the report of the accident was lodged by Chatrapal Singh at Thana Thakurdwara. Perusal of the paper No. 5C/8, it is clear that the vehicle in question was insured with The New India Assurance Company Ltd. The finding that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation appears to be perfectly justified. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal in order to calculate the amount of compensation considered the age of the deceased as 60 years whereas Smt. Keshori Devi stated the age of the deceased as 57 years. He has further submitted that the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ‘5’ which is not justified. 10. Perusal of the record shows that in the postmortem report the age of the deceased has been shown as 60 years and according to the claimant, the age of the deceased was 57 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence, rightly considered the age of the deceased as 60 years. As far as the multiplier is concerned, I am in total agreement with the finding recorded 4 by the Tribunal. Considering the age of the deceased as well as facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the same comes to Rs. 4,000/- and the annual income comes to Rs. 48,000/-. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ‘5’, in my opinion it is just and proper. In this way the compensation comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- (4000 X 12 X 5). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the claim petition, till the date of actual payment, which appears to be quite reasonable. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal concerned. The finding recorded by the Tribunal does not require any interference. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 11.06.2008 ASWAL