IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 781 of 2006 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation … Appellant Vs Smt. Renu & others … Respondents Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Sri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 10.10.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 274 of 2004, Smt. Renu & others Vs Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2004 at about 08:00 p.m. the deceased – Jagir Singh @ Jagdeesh was going to his farm for irrigation from his house by motorcycle No. UA06B/5591. When he reached near Pehanla Choraha, suddenly, a bus bearing registration No. UP07J/0552, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the said motorcycle, due to which the deceased died at the spot. According to the claim petition, the deceased was a farmer and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month by farming. It is further alleged that on the date of accident, the deceased was 22 years of age. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation. 2 3. Opposite party No. 1 – Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Ltd. contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal denying the factum of accident. The accident took place due to rash and negligence driving of the motorcyclist himself and nothing has been mentioned in the report about the bus in question. It has further alleged that the deceased was not having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. Opposite party No. 2 – United India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal denying most of the allegations made in the claim petition. It has further alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed at great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. 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. 4,15,000/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 10.10.2006. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. The claimants also filed the cross objection for enhancing the amount of compensation. 3 7. Heard Sri N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and perused the record. 8. As far as the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving is concerned, it appears to be quite justified. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus No. UP07J/0552. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of quantum. He has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal in the absence of any evidence pertaining to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has to consider the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum whereas the Tribunal has committed error by adopting notional of Rs. 3,000/- per month. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has also committed illegality while taking the multiplier of ‘17’ in this case and he has submitted that the multiplier of ‘15’ is sufficient in this case. 10. It is not disputed that the claimants have not produced any document, which may show the actual income of the deceased, therefore, the Tribunal adopted the notion income of the deceased. The Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Shobhan Singh & another Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd. & another, decided on 01.11.2006 due to price hike taken into account the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any illegality while taking into account notional income of Rs. 36,000/- per annum. As far as 4 the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant relating to the multiplier, I also do not find any force in the same. In view of the above, the Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd amount as personal expenses of the deceased considered the financial dependency of the claimants to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. In this case also the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was a farmer and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, no positive and cogent evidence has been adduced by the claimants in order to prove the income of the deceased, therefore, in absence of any cogent and positive evidence the Tribunal has rightly adopted the notional income of Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as well as facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly adopted the multiplier of ‘17’. In this way, the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants comes to 4,08,000/- (24000 X 17). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,15,000/- as compensation. The claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 4,15,000/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted before the Court that the interest awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. 12. I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. The interest part does not require any interference at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 5 14. Consequently, the cross appeal filed by the claimants is also dismissed. 15. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 01.12.2008 ASWAL