IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No.16 of 2004. Reserved on: 04.06.2008. Date of decision: June 16, 2008. Har Kaur & Ors. … Appellants Versus Ram Krishan & Ors. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellants : Mr.R.K.Gautam, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.A.K.Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate for respondent No.3. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The appellants were petitioners – claimants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur and have come by way of the present appeal in this Court for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 6.10.2003 passed in MAC Case No.39 of 2002 awarding Rs.2,79,200 compensation on account of death of Dharam Singh who died in motor accident on 30.4.2002. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… 2. The facts, in brief, are that appellants filed claim petition claiming Rs.15 lac compensation on account of death of Dharam Singh aged 48 years in an accident involving truck bearing registration No.HP-11-3527 on 30.4.2002 at place near Rajpura. Dharam Singh was in the truck at the time of accident with his goats and the truck was owned by respondent No.1 and was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2 at the time of accident. The appellants are the widow, children and mother of the deceased. The deceased was working as Turner in a private workshop and was getting Rs.3350 per month salary. In addition to the job of Turner, he was also in cattle trade and from all sources he was earning Rs.10,000 per month. 3. The respondents No.1 and 2 contested the petition and admitted that on the date of accident, the truck was owned by respondent No.1 and it was being driven by respondent No.2. It has been denied that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2. The respondents No.1 and 2 have taken the defence that accident took place due to sudden failure of brakes of the truck. The respondents No.1 and 2 expressed ignorance about the age, income and dependency of the claimants on the deceased. They have denied that the appellants are entitled to compensation from them. The respondent No.3 insurer also contested the claim of the appellants. The insurer took the stand that respondent No.2 was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Dharam Singh was unauthorized …3… gratuitous passenger in the truck and the risk of unauthorized gratuitous passenger was not covered by the insurer to respondent No.1. In these circumstances, respondent No.3 denied the liability to indemnify respondents No.1 and 2. The learned Tribunal after the conclusion of the trial awarded Rs.2,79,200 to the appellants out of which Rs.1,50,000 was awarded to appellant No.1 and remaining amount was to be shared equally among the rest of the appellants. The Tribunal held that respondent No.3 was liable to indemnify respondents No.1 and 2 and, therefore, directed respondent No.3 to deposit Rs.2,79,200 from the date of award failing which simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall also be payable on the award amount from the date of award. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement. 4. I have heard Mr.R.K.Gautam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants, Mr.A.K.Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2, Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate for respondent No.3 and gone through the record. On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that the learned Tribunal has misconstrued and misinterpreted the material on record regarding the income of the deceased and dependency of the appellants. It has been submitted that appropriate and just multiplier has not been applied for assessing the compensation. The learned Tribunal has awarded conditional interest which is not permissible in law. Moreover, the interest has been awarded from the date of award instead of from the date of filing of the petition. The learned counsel …4… representing the respondents have supported the impugned award. They have submitted that the appellants are not entitled to enhancement of compensation. The interest awarded by the learned Tribunal also does not require any interference. 5. The short question involved in this appeal is regarding the amount of compensation to which the appellants are entitled and the interest payable on the compensation. PW-2 Smt.Har Kaur is the widow of deceased Dharam Singh. She has stated that at the time of accident, the age of her husband was 47 years. He was working with Sher Singh on partnership basis. In addition to this, he was working as turner and also used to supply milk and was engaged in other agricultural operations. In all he used to earn Rs.10,000 per month. As turner he used to earn Rs.3350 per month. In cross examination, she has denied that she has wrongly given the income of her husband. Ext.PG, certificate issued by Avtar Singh and Company, is to the effect that Dharam Singh was working with Avtar Singh and Company and drawing Rs.3350 per month. This certificate is undated and has not been proved. In fact, Ext.PG has been tendered in evidence by the learned counsel for the appellants – claimants and at the time of tendering of this document objection was taken by the other side. Thus, Ext.PG, certificate cannot be looked into evidence. The statement of PW-2 Smt.Har Kaur regarding the income of the deceased is very sketchy and it cannot be believed for want of corroboration. The appellants have led no other evidence regarding the income of the deceased. Therefore, no fault can be found with …5… the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that Dharam Singh was earning Rs.2600 per month and in these circumstances dependency of the appellants claimants at Rs.1800 per month held by learned Tribunal is just and reasonable. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12 which appears to be on the higher side keeping in view that Dharam Singh was 47 years at the time of his death. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,59,200 to the claimants and in addition to another sum of Rs.20,000 to appellant – claimant No.1 for loss of consortium. In all the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,79,200 to the appellants – claimants and that has been ordered to be apportioned amongst the appellants as mentioned in Para-16 of the impugned award. It has come on record that deceased was carrying goats in the truck at the time of accident and the truck was insured with respondent No.3. The Tribunal after holding liability of respondents No.1 to 3 to pay the compensation to the appellants – claimants has rightly held that entire compensation shall be payable by respondent No.3 insurer. The respondents have accepted the award as they have not come in appeal. 6. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% from the date of award in case the award amount was not deposited within two months from the date of award. There is substance in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants – claimants that the appellants are entitled to 9% interest per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition …6… till realization of the amount and the interest shall also be payable by respondent No.3 insurer. 7. No other point was urged. 8. The result of the above discussion is that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the appellants – claimants is upheld. However, on the amount of compensation of Rs.2,79,200 the appellants – claimants shall also be entitled simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 26.6.2002 till realization. The award amount of Rs.2,79,200 as well as interest, as observed above, shall be payable by respondent No.3 insurer to the appellants – claimants in the ratio mentioned in Para-16 of the impugned award. With these modifications in the impugned award, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. June 16, 2008(soni) ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. …7…