IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 321 of 2006 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi & others … Respondents Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, ACJ This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 20.04.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in M.A.C.P. No. 80 of 2005, Smt. Vijaya Laxmi & others Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.12.2004, the deceased – Madan Gopal Chamoli was going in vehicle No. UP07K/8077 from Uttarkash to Dehradun. When the said vehicle reached at Uttarkashi-Rishikesh Road at Palli Village, due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, it met with an accident and fell into a 500 meter ditch. In the said accident, Madan Gopal Chamoli died at the spot. According to the claimant, the deceased was working in the Nagarpalika Parishad, Uttarkashi and used to earn Rs. 8,037/- per month as salary. The claimants are the dependents upon the deceased. Hence, they have filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 17,68,212/- as compensation. 3. The opposite party/the New India Assurance Company Ltd. contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal alleging therein that the vehicle in question was a private vehicle and the deceased could not 2 claim himself to be a passenger. Therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed on the false grounds. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues:- 1. Whether the accident took on 03.12.2004 at about 10:25 a.m. near village Palli on Uttarkash-Rishikesh motor road within Police Station Chamba, District Tehri Garhwal due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van No. UP07K/8077 by its driver, resulting that death of Sri Madan Gopal Chamoli as alleged? 2. Whether the petitioners are no entitled to be indemnified by the opposite party for the reason disclosed in para No. 9 of its WS? If so its effect? 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle not possess valid driving licence and the owner of the vehicle had no valid permit and fitness of the vehicle on the date of the accident as alleged by the opposite party in paragraph No. 6 and 8 respectively in its W.S.? If so, its effect? 4. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled from the opposite party? 5. 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. 9,51,000/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and order dated 20.04.2006. 3 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has not considered this point that the car in question was a private car and the same was not for carrying passengers. Further, there was no separate premium was paid to cover the risk of persons sitting inside the car. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award against the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 9. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it reveals that this plea has already taken by the counsel for the Insurance Company before the Tribunal and the Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record decided the issue No. 1 against the appellant/Insurance Company. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 1. I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal is confirmed relating to this aspect. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ‘14’ in order to calculate the amount of compensation, which appears to be on the higher side. He has further submitted that the 4 Tribunal did not calculate the amount as per law while awarding the amount of compensation. 11. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the paper No. 10C/7 available on record has considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 8,037/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the same amount comes to Rs. 5,358/- and the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 64,000/- (rounded). The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted the multiplier of ‘14’, which appears to be quite justified. In view of the aforesaid calculation, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 8,96,000/-. Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the claimants towards mental and physical agony, which appears to be justified. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. After calculating the aforesaid calculation, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 9,51,000/-. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award. The amount of compensation is perfectly just and proper. The finding recorded by the Tribunal does not require any interference. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 20.04.2006 is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, ACJ) 11.02.2009 ASWAL