IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 525 of 2007 Smt. Janki & others … Appellants Vs Sulwant Singh & another … Respondents Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants Sri Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 03.05.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 202 of 2001. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.2001 at about 01:10 p.m., the deceased – Liladhar was sitting on the side of the road at S.N. Sharma Rajkiya Inter College, Sultanpur. Suddenly, a bus bearing registration No. UP25/6882, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, due to which he received serious injuries. Thereafter he was immediately taken to the Jayachand Home Guard Hospital, Bazpur, where he was declared dead. According to the claim petition, at the time of the death, the deceased was 55 years of age and working as a peon in P.W.D. and used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month as salary. The claimants are the dependents upon the deceased. Hence, they have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 6,40,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal 2 denying the allegations made in the claim petition. The owner of the bus has pleaded that the driver of the bus was having the valid driving licence and the bus in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability to pay compensation, lies upon the Insurance Company. On the other hand, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. has pleaded that information about the accident was not given to the Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle in question was not made the party. Therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. 4. 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, the Tribunal has decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,51,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till 08.10.2001 vide judgment and order dated 03.05.2007. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancing the amount of compensation. 6. Heard Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Prabhat Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 7. 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. I am in total agreement with findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal has rightly held that the 3 accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question. Further from the perusal of paper No. 35C/3 as well as statement of R.L. Malhotra (D.W.3), it is clear that the bus in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident. Therefore, this finding also does not require any interference. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his argument only on the point of quantum. He has invited my attention towards the finding recorded by the Tribunal to this aspect that the Tribunal considered the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the Tribunal has considered Rs. 18,000/- in order to calculate the amount of compensation whereas after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the same amount comes to Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an illegality while calculating the amount of compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has not raised any rival contention against the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and going through the record, I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. In order to resolve the sole controversy, I have gone through the entire record. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, it appears from the perusal of the impugned judgment and award that the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 2 has calculated the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 30,000/-. I am of the view that the annual income of the deceased has been rightly 4 assessed as Rs. 30,000/- and this finding recorded by the Tribunal does not require any interference. The Tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs. 12,000/-, the 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased out of the total annual income of Rs. 30,000/-, which appears to be on higher side. The 1/3rd of the total annual income comes to Rs. 10,000/- and not Rs. 12,000/- as has been observed by the Tribunal. In case, if 1/3rd amount out of the total annual income of the deceased is deducted, then financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 20,000/- instead of Rs. 18,000/- as has been held by the Tribunal. 11. Further, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘8’ keeping in view the age of the deceased, which appears to be justified. Thus, in case, if the financial dependency of the claimants is taken into account as Rs. 20,000/- and after adopting the multiplier of ‘8’, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,60,000/- (20000 X 8). The claimants are thus entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- instead of Rs. 1,44,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- under the head of funeral expenses as well as a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and loss of state, which should remain intact. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,67,000/- (160000 + 2000 + 5000). The claimants are therefore, entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- along with an interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified against the Insurance Company upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- instead of Rs. 5 1,51,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment as has been awarded by the Tribunal. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 11.11.2008 ASWAL