IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 394 of 2005 Smt. Natho Devi & 2 others ….Appellants Vs. Julfkar Hussain & another …Respondents Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/ claimants against the judgment and award dated 02.06.2005 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 74 of 2004 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sun of Rs. 4,05,100/- if favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.01.2004, the deceased – Jasram Singh at about 08:15 p.m. was busy in Government duty at Thana Jaspur near Thakurdwara Chungi. He was standing on the road, suddenly, Balaro Jeep No. UP20H/5619 which was being driven by its driver in a verydeceased due to which he sustained multiple injuries on his body. He was immediately admitted in Kashipur Hospital and thereafter to Muradabad Hospital where during the treatment he was died on 11.02.2004 due to those injuries. At the time of accident, he was posted at Jaspur Police Station as a Sub-Inspector and used to earn Rs. 12,000/- per month. The claimants are the dependent upon the deceased, therefore, filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 12,47,000/- as compensation. 3. The owner as well as Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement before the Tribunal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition in favour of the appellants for Rs. 4,05,100/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition vide judgment and award dated 02.06.2005. 5. Heard Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Bindesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of multiplier. He has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of ‘4’. He has submitted that according to the schedule the multiplier for the age group of 55 to 60 years must be taken as ‘8’ while the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 59 years in spite of that the Tribunal adopted the multiplier on the lesser side. 7. Sri B.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of ‘4’ as the deceased was 59 years of age. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased has rightly adopted the multiplier of ‘4’ which is just and proper. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the record. The appellants have filed salary certificate which is Paper No. 29gha. Perusal of the same, it reveals that the deceased was getting Rs. 11, 779/- per month. His annual income comes to Rs. 1,41,348/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount as personal expenses it comes to Rs. 94, 232/-. The Tribunal after considering the age of the deceased has adopted the multiplier of ‘4’ hence, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,76, 928/-. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 23,246.25 on the basis of the medical bills submitted by the appellants. Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/towards funeral expense and Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of consortium. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,05,100/- which appears to be just and proper. I am in total agreement with the impugned judgment and award. The amount of compensation needs no interference. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further invited my attention towards the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. He has submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lesser side. 10. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, I think it would be justified if interest is awarded @ 71/2% per annum instead of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is modified upto the extent that the appellants are entitled to get the same @ 71/2% per annum instead of 6% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal do not require any interference by this Court. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 10.4.2008