IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 391 of 2005 Uttaranchal Transport Corporation through Regional Manage, Nainital … Appellant Vs. Smt. Anandi Arya Widow of Late Rajendra Lal Arya & 3 others. … Respondents Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Syed Nadeem, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Sri B. D. Pande, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 28.05.2005 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/IInd F.T.C., Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 53 of 2004, Smt. Anandi Arya & others Vs Uttaranchal Transport Corporation whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,32,4000/- in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2004 at 06:30 the deceased Rajendra Lal after completing his duty going to his house from Naintial. He was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. UP03/4140 from Nainital, which was being driven by its drive in a rash and negligent manner. The bus was running under the Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation Ltd. When the bus reached near Baldiakhan, the driver of the bus lost control over the bus, due to which it fell into a ditch. In his accident Sri Rajendra Lal died at the spot along with other passenger. At the time of the accident, the deceased was working in M/s Janta Offset, Mallital, Nainital and used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month and in addition he was also doing agricultural work by which he used to earn Rs. 3,000/-. At the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 34 years. Therefore, the claimant/appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal concerned for Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The Uttaranchal Transport Corporation owner of the bus, contested the claim petition and denied the allegations made in the claim petition and also alleged that the Corporation was not liable to pay and compensation on the ground that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the said accident. According to the Corporation, the said accident took place due to another vehicle, which was coming on the wrong direction. When the driver of the bus turned the bus on his right side in order to save that vehicle, if fell into the ditch due to which all the passengers as well as driver of the bus died at the spot. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. 5. After considering the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,32,400/- vide judgment and award dated 28.05.2005 in favour of the claimants against the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Syed Nadeem, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Sri B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 4 and perused the record. 8. It is not disputed that the said accident took place on that day. In his statement, D.W. 1 – M.D. Kotwal, conductor of the bus has stated in his statement, who was the only eyewitness of the incident. He has stated that the driver of the said bus applied emergency brake but it did not work. It was further alleged that the accident took place, when suddenly a light vehicle came on the wrong side of the road, the driver in order to save that vehicle turned the vehicle on his right side due to which accident took place. It is apparent from the perusal of the statement made by D.W.1, Sri. M.D. Kotwal that there was a ‘U’ turn but suddenly when another vehicle came on the wrong direction, the driver of the bus wanted to save that vehicle, turned the bus on his right side due to which it fell into a ditch. 9. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings that when there was a ‘U’ turn, the driver should have to move the vehicle slowly to his left side but due to negligence on the part of the driver, he turned the bus on the right side. Hence, on default of the driver, the said accident took place. 10. I have carefully perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has discussed each and every point in great detail. I am also in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal concerned. The Tribunal has considered the statement made by Smt. Anandi Arya who has stated in her statement that her husband – Sri Rajendra Lal Arya died in the said accident. In the claim petition, the claimants have submitted that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 8,000/- but the claimants did not produce any evidence which shows that monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 8,000/-. In order to proof their case, the claimants have produced certificate issued by M/s Janta Offset, which reveals that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,300/-. The Tribunal recorded the statement of Rajeev Nagia (P.W.2) who has issued the above certificate. He has stated in his statement that the deceased was getting the aforesaid amount including overtime. He has further submitted that he had issued the above certificate considering the average salary, which he was getting in the whole year. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,300/- per month and the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 39,600/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, annual dependency was assessed at Rs. 26,400/-. Further the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 34 years adopted the multiplier of 16 then the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,22,400/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards consortium and Rs. 5,000/- toward funeral expenses. In this way, total compensation comes to Rs. 4,32,400/- 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has not argued on the point of the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the question of monthly income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant has only argued that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on a very higher side. In order to support his case, he has placed before the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Kalpana & others reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 94. 12. So far as the award of compensation is concerned, on the basis of the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to Rs. 3,300/-. Learned counsel for the appellant did not object on the point of his monthly income. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 34 years and working in M/s Janta Offest at Nainital. Smt. Anandi Arya produced the certificate of the deceased which is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is very high. Keeping in view the age and income of the deceased the multiplier of ‘16’ as has been adopted by the Tribunal appears to be on higher side. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Kalpana & others reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court cases (Cri) 94., I am of the opinion that the multiplier of ‘12’ in this case would be just and reasonable. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra), I am of the view that the claimants would be entitled to get multiplier of ‘12’ which appears to be sufficient. At the time of the accident, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,300/- and his annual income comes to Rs 39,600/-. If he would spend 1/3rd on himself as personal expenses, then his annual income comes to Rs. 26,400/- and after adopting the multiplier of ‘12’ its comes to Rs. 3,16,800/-. As far as the amount of consortium and funeral expenses, it need not require any interference. 14. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 28.05.2005 is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 3,26,800/- instead of Rs. 4,32,400/- from the appellant. The interest part is not required any interference. The claimants are entitled to get the amount of compensation, as mentioned below:- 1. Anandai Arya, wife of the deceased Rs. 1,00,000/- 2. Smt Janki Arya, mother of the deceased Rs. 50,000/- 3. Rest of the amount be deposited in some nationalized bank in the name of Mast. Sarad and Km. Himani equally, till they attend the age of majority. 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Uttaranchal Transport Corporation is partly allowed. 16 The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court at time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 03.04.2008 ASWAL