IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 119 of 2007 Smt. Govindi Devi & others … Appellants Vs Rajendra Singh & another … Respondents Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for the appellants Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants/appellants against the judgment dated 01.12.2006 and decree dated 08.12.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pithoragarh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 97 of 2005, Smt. Govindi Devi & others Vs Rajendra Singh Karki & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.11.2005, Maan Singh (deceased) was coming from Pithoragarh in a jeep bearing registration No. UP03/4207. The driver of the jeep driving the said jeep in a very rash and negligent manner. At about 02:30 p.m., when the said jeep reached near Bhori at Anaritok, it met with an accident and fell into the ditch, due to which the deceased died at the spot. According to the claim petition, the deceased was 50 years of age on the date of accident and used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claimants are the dependents upon the deceased, therefore, they have filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs as compensation. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement before the Tribunal. The owner of the vehicle in question denied most of the allegations made in the claim petition. He has also alleged 2 that the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. On the other hand, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. also alleged that the amount of compensation is very exorbitant and the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the claim petition against the insurer/Insurance Company was liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a 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 has decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,99,900/- vide judgment and order dated 01.12.2008. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement the amount of compensation. 6. Heard Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 7. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any submission. Sri Rajendra Singh Karki (D.W.1) has stated that the accident took place due to technical failure and in order to support his version he has also produced driver of the jeep in question who has supported the version of the owner of the jeep. From the perusal of the record it is clear that they have not produced any cogent evidence before the Tribunal, which may support their version. As far as the submission advanced 3 by the owner of the vehicle in question, it is clear that he was not the actual witness of the accident. The Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record as well as considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the accident took placed due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep No. UP03/4207 and I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. The Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the jeep in question. 8. While deciding the issue No. 2, the Tribunal after considering the documents available on record came to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle in question was having the valid and effective driving licence. The owner of the vehicle has submitted paper No. 22C/6, which is photocopy of the driving licence of the driver. Further while dealing with the issue No. 3, the Tribunal on the basis of the paper No. 23C/5 came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award, while dealing with these issues. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal did not consider the material available on record carefully and wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,300/- per month. He has further submitted that the deceased was working in M/s Ajay Mahar, Contractor and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error by not considering the income of the deceased Rs. 5,000/-. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has rightly taken into 4 account the income of the deceased considering the statement of Ajay Mahar who has stated that there was a holidays for 7 to 8 days in a month, in this way, the Tribunal has rightly taken into account the monthly income of the deceased. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire record available before me. From the perusal of the record, it has come to my notice that the claimants as well as Ajay Mahar did not produce any document, which may show the exact income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal in order to calculate the amount of compensation, considering the statement of the P.W. 3 as well as facts and circumstances of the case assessed Rs. 3300/- per month as salary of the deceased. I do not find any ground to interfere in the same. Thereafter, after deducing 1/3rd towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs. 2200/- and the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 26400/-. The Tribunal further considering the age of the deceased as 50 years adopted the multiplier of ‘11’, which appears to be justified. After adopting the aforesaid calculation, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,90,400/-. Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of state. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,99,900/- as compensation. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. 12. As far as the conditional interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, I am of the view that the claimants should be entitled to get the amount of compensation along 5 with an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment instead of conditional interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal. 13. With the above observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,99,900/- along with interest @ 7% per annum (instead of conditional interest) from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment instead of conditional interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 10.12.2008 ASWAL