IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 587 of 2005 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Versus Shri Victor Messy & others … Respondents Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate, for appellant/insurance company Sri H. M. Bhatia, holding brief of Sri Arvind Vashist, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 & 2 Dated: April 8, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Dehradun, in MACT Case No. 218 of 2004, Sh. Victor Messy & others Vs. Sh. Deepak Singh and another. The claimants-Sh. Victor Messy and another preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation on account of their death of Vikilson Messy in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants, on 10.8.2004 when deceased Vikilson Messy along with his companion was going from Dehradun to Muzaffarnagar through his motorcycle, a Truck bearing Registration No. H.R. 058-3002, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, crushed the deceased-Vikilson Messy and his companion. The deceased Vikilson Messy sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries on the way to Hospital. The claimants have pleaded that at the time of accident deceased was 30 years of age and working in Tata Commercial Motors and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. They have also pleaded that deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. The claimants thus filed the claim petition for compensation on account of death of their son-Vikilson Messy (deceased). Opposite parties no. 1 and 2 did not contest their case and therefore the case was proceeded exparte against them. Opposite party no. 3-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. filed written statement refuting the contents of claim petition. It took additional plea that amount of compensation as claimed by claimants is excessive and truck driver and owner were not cooperating with insurance company. It has also pleaded that driver of offending truck and deceased-motorcyclist were not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and accident occurred due to contributory negligence of motorcyclist, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the material available before it and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation, in favour of claimants, against opposite party no. 3- New India Assurance Company Limited. The Tribunal also directed that this amount of compensation is to be paid by opposite party no. 3- insurance company, within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which, insurance company shall have to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal before this Court. The claimants have also preferred Cross Objection before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard I. P. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company, Sri H. M. Bhatia, holding brief of Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for claimants-respondents no. 1 & 2 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in selecting the multiplier which is on higher side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the learned Tribunal awarded meager amount of compensation and the same should be enhanced by this Court. I have gone through the impugned award. Perusal of record and evidence reveals that the age of the deceased at the time of accident, on the basis of High School Certificate, was 30 years. The income of the deceased as has been assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 3000/- per month. I do not find any reason to disturb the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to monthly income of the deceased and it is taken to be Rs. 3000/- per month as has been indicated in the impugned judgment and award. In case, if the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs. 3000/- per month, then annual financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 3000 x 12=Rs. 36,000/- per annum. As far as multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, the record reveals that deceased is the only son of the claimants. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar circumstance of this case, the multiplier of ‘10’ as has been adopted by the Tribunal appears to be quite reasonable. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the above calculation of compensation. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal does not require any interference by this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and cross objection filed by the claimants, are dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, is confirmed. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant-insurance company at the time of filing the appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP