IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 1999 of 2009. Decided on: 25.6.2009. __________________________________________________ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. … Petitioner. Versus Hazara and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : None. ___________________________________________________________ The petitioner-Company has challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan in Petition No. 17-NL/2 of 2006 dated 12.9.2008. Mr. Lalit K. Sharma has strenuously argued that the award dated 12.9.2008 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has failed to take into consideration well settled principles of law while determining the compensation in motor accident cases. He finally contended that the income of the deceased has not been properly assessed and multiplier has also not been applied correctly. We have gone through the award carefully. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The deceased was aged 25 years at the time of accident i.e. 6.7.2006. He was rearing buffaloes and selling milk. He was carrying milk to the bazaar at the time of accident. He was treated at Civil Hospital, Nalagarh and thereafter, referred to P.G.I. He succumbed to injuries. F.I.R. No. 112 of 2006 was registered under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Copy of F.I.R. was proved by PW-3 Bashir Mohammad. Respondent No.5 has proved on record copy of driving licence and registration certificate. He has also placed on record copy of insurance i.e. RW-1/A which was valid with effect from 15.12.2005 to 14.12.2006. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly returned the finding that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.5. PW-1 is the widow. She has filed her affidavit Ext. PW-1/A. In the affidavit tendered by her, the income of her husband is shown Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has come to the right conclusion that the income of deceased Pappu from selling milk was Rs. 6,000/- per month. The finding recorded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding fixation of the income cannot be treated as perverse. The deceased was 25 years of age. The widow was aged 20 years at the time of accident. The deceased has left behind child aged 18 months at the time of accident. He has also left behind his mother and father. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 18 at the age of 25 years. The multiplier has been applied by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by taking into consideration the age of the 3 deceased as well as the claimants. There is no illegality in fixing the multiplier of 18 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The amount awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal towards transportation and performing of last rites, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is also in accordance with law. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no force in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla),C. J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 25, 2009. (cr)