IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 334 of 2008 Smt. Leela Devi & others … Appellants Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & another … Respondents Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 09.04.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Chamoli in M.A.C.T. Case No. 17 of 2007, Smt. Leela Devi & others Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.09.2006 at about 03:30 p.m., the deceased – Sobhan Singh along with other companions was travelling in vehicle No. UP07K/9821 from Village Fakti to Tapowan. When the said vehicle moved towards Tapowan, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question, it met with an accident. In this accident, Sobhan Singh died at the spot whereas other passengers sustained serious injuries. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 32 years of age and used to earn Rs. 15,500/- by doing agricultural work, milk business and others work. The claimants are the dependents upon the deceased, therefore, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of the death of Sri Sobhan Singh. 2 3. Thereafter notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal concerned. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,69,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 5% per annum vide judgment and award dated 09.04.2008. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancing the amount of compensation. 5. Heard Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 6. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal on the basis of the documents as well as evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. Perusal of the record shows that the owner of the vehicle has stated in his statement that the accident took place due to technical failure, but the court below granted sufficient opportunity to the owner of the vehicle to prove his case, but he could not produce any document before the court below in support to his version. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 relating to the rash and negligent driving. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has submitted only on the point that the Tribunal has 3 committed illegality while calculating the amount of compensation. He has submitted that the accident took place in the year 2006 and the Tribunal has taken into account annual notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- whereas the notional income during relevant year was Rs. 36,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error while calculating the amount of compensation the same is liable to be enhanced. 8. Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record rightly calculated the amount of compensation. He has further submitted that the Tribunal in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence available on record rightly calculated the amount on the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly just and reasonable. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record as well as impugned judgment and award. As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3 has discussed this aspect of the matter but the approach adopted by the Tribunal appears to be absolutely erroneous. The Tribunal has also considered the annual notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/-, which also appears to be absolutely unjustified in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Shobhan Singh & another Vs New India Insurance Company Ltd. & another, decided on 01.11.2006 wherein it has held that in view of the price hike the notional income of the deceased to be taken as Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount as personal expenses of the deceased, 4 the financial dependency of the claimants shall comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. In this case also the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was doing agricultural work and other business and he used to earn Rs. 15,500/- per month as salary. However, no positive and cogent evidence has been adduced by the claimants in order to prove the income of the deceased, therefore, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence available on record, the notional income should be taken for the purpose of calculation of dependency of the claimants. In view of the aforesaid decision, the notional income is taken as Rs. 36,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd of it as personal expenses of the deceased; the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 24,000/-. 10. In this case, the age of the deceased was 33 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the deceased as well as in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Kalpana & others reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 94, T.N. State Transport Corporation Vs S. Rajapriya & others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 276 and The Managing Director, TNSTC Vs Sripriya & others reported in 2007 (5) Supreme 301, the multiplier cannot travel more than ‘13’ in any manner in the instant case. After applying the multiplier of ‘13’, the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants comes to Rs. 3,12,000/- (24000 X 13). The amount awarded by the Tribunal under other different heads i.e. Rs. 2000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate, shall remain intact. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,16,500/-. 5 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,12,000/- instead of Rs. 1,69,500/- along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. 12. Consequently, cross objection No. 6719 of 2008 is dismissed accordingly. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 10.06.2009 ASWAL