IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 561 of 2006 Smt. Uma Negi and another … Appellants. Versus Granesh Sigh Bargali and another .. Respondents. Sri Siddhartha Bisht, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Sammal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Lalit Belwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Dated: 09-05-2008 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 4-5-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Almora, in MACT Case No. 01 of 2005. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 5th July, 2004, at about 10.30 A.M., deceased Tara Singh Negi was travelling in Bus No. U.P. 04-A-2877. The bus met with an accident in which, Tara Singh sustained injuries and he succumbed to these injuries at the spot. At the time of accident he was 20 years old. The claimants, parents of the deceased, filed claim petition for compensation. 2- The opposite party No.1, owner of the offending Bus filed his written statement and denied the allegations made in the petition. He also alleged that at the place of accident the motor road was very narrow and the offending Bus met with accident due to some mechanical defect. The driver was driving the bus very carefully. It was also alleged that the bus was insured with National Insurance Company and the liability, if any, to pay compensation, is of the insurer. 2 3- The opposite party no.2, National Insurance Company also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement. It alleged that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. The driver of the vehicle was carrying the passengers more than the authorized limit, therefore the conditions of the insurance policy were breached, hence the insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 4- On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues in the case. 5- The claimants to prove their case examined P.W.1, Pan Singh Taragi and P.W.2, Narendra Singh and also adduced documentary evidence. The owner of the offending vehicle filed copy of driving license, copy of registration certificate and insurance cover note. 6- The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of final payment. The owner as well as the insurer were directed to pay the amount of award jointly and severally within 60 days. 7- Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 8- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9- Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has calculated the 3 compensation on the lesser amount and the multiplier has also been adopted on lower side. Therefore, the compensation should be enhanced. 10- On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the deceased was a non-earning member and he was unmarried, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the dependency on the notional income and a correct multiplier has been adopted, taking into considering the age of the parents of the deceased. 11- From perusal of the record it is to be noted here that the claimants have filed the claim petition mentioning no income of the deceased. According to them he was studying at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- for purposes of calculating the dependency of the claimants, and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 10,000/-. So far as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 12. The age of father and mother of the deceased at the time of recording the statement before the Tribunal was given 43 and 48 respectively, therefore, looking to their age, in my opinion multiplier of 15 would be just and proper in the instant case. Therefore, the compensation would be Rs. 10,000/- X 15= Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, to which the claimants are entitled to get. In this way the total amount of compensation would be Rs. 1,52,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 7% per annum and in my opinion the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and shall remain intact. 4 12- For the discussion made above, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 13- Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 4.5.2006 is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, instead of Rs. 1,22,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. In other respect the impugned award is maintained. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5