IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 46 of 2005 Harish Chandra s/o Shir Gaji Chandra R/o Village Aam Bag Police Station Tanakpur Tehsil Shri Purnagiri Tanakpur District Champawat .......... Appellant Versus 1- Shri Puskar Singh Bisht S/o Shir Kishan Singh Bisht R/o Village Dhami Saun Post (Vehicle owner of Vehicle No. U.P. 03-1941) 2- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Regional Manager, Regional Officer Nainital Road Tikoniya, Haldwani, District Nainital .............Respondents. Sri Kishor Kumar, learned counsel for appellant Sri Manish Dalakoti, holding brief of Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate, for respondents. Dated: April 25, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 27.10.2004 passed by Motor Accident claims Tribunal/District Judge, Champawat, in M.A.C.T. No. 13 of 2004, Harish Chandra vs. Shir Puskar Singh Bisht & others. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.2003 claimant was going from Bastiya to Tanakpur through his motorcycle and when he reached one kilometer ahead form Kiroda Nale towards Tanakpur, a vehicle bearing Registration No. UP 03/ 1941 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed the motorcyclist from the rear side, as a result of which claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was admitted in Public Health Centre Tanakpur, where he was advised to take treatment from Orthopedic Surgeon. the claimant was admitted in Khatima Hospital from 24.12.2003 to 15.02.04 and he was operated thrice for his injuries. The doctors declared the claimant as 75% disabled. Opposite party no. 1-owner of offending vehicle find written statement alleging therein that when driver of offending vehicle tried to overtake the motorcyclist, suddenly vehicle collided with motorcyclist on the rear side from its side. The drive of offending vehicle was not at fault in this accident. He also took plea that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. Opposite party no. 2-insurance company also filed written statement and alleged that no information was given to insurance company by owner of the vehicle with regard to alleged accident and there is breach of conditions of insurance policy. It also took plea that there is no proof of validity of driving licence and papers of vehicle at the time of accident and motorcyclist was not made party in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues and decreed the claim petition in favor of claimant and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,83,600/- as compensation to the claimant, payable by owner of vehicle as well as insurance company, jointly and severally. The Tribunal also directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid to the claimant by both the opposite parties within a period of two months, failing which, they shall have to pay an interest of 9% per annum from the date of presentation of claim petition till the payment of compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has contented that the Tribunal has committed mistake by not taking into consideration the monthly income of the injured yielded by him on agriculture. The Tribunal therefore was not justified in assessing the income of the injured at minimum wages i.e. Rs. 58/- per day. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the compensation be enhanced after taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased claimed in the petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurance company has supported the approach adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the loss of income of the injured due to his disability on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident and contended that the injured could not prove his income on the agriculture, hence the income on minimum wages has rightly been taken into consideration. After having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned award. I do not find any infirmity in the award. Although the injured has claimed that 5 Bigha agricultural land is in his share and he earned Rs. 5000/- per month from the said land. He also filed income certificate-paper no. 29-B, in which Patwari has mentioned that from all source the injured used to earn Rs. 5000/- per month, but here it would be out of place to mention that firstly the Patwari is not a competent person to issue income certificate and secondly she said paper has not been got proved by examining the Patwari who may explained that how the injured used to earn the aforesaid amount. The learned Tribunal has rightly not admitted the income certificate in evidence and accordingly did not rely on the same. The Tribunal has taken a right approach in assessing the income of injured on minimum wages of RS. 58/- per day, the monthly income comes to Rs. 1740/- and annual income comes to Rs. 20,880/-. The injured has sustained disability upto 75% and disability certificate has been filed, therefore, the annual income has rightly been calculated Rs. 15,660/- after deducting 25%. The Tribunal also deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and the net annual loss of income has been assessed at Rs. 10,440/-. The Tribunal adopted multiplier of ‘15’ between the age group of 40-45 and the same do not require any interference. Thus, the loss of income comes to Rs. 1,56,600/-. Besides this, the injured filed medical bills for Rs. 25,557/-, out of which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- and under the head ‘mental and physical agony’ Rs. 2000/- were also awarded. In this way, the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,56,600/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 2000= 1,83,600/-, which amount appears to be quite justified. The Tribunal has also directed that amount of compensation is to be paid by opposite parties within two months, failing which, they shall have to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 9.4.2004 till the date of final payment. In the interest of justice the interest should be awarded from the date of filing of the petition. In view of above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. However, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimant would be entitled to get the amount of compensation awarded by the court below along with at interest of 9% per annum form the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP