THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 54 of 2008 Jaipal Singh and others …Appellants Versus M/s Accum Drugs Pharmaceutical & others ... Respondents With Appeal From Order No. 95 of 2009 M/s Accum Drugs Pharmaceutical …Appellant Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others ... Respondents In AO No. 54/2008: Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate for appellants Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Sri P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for respondent no. 3 In AO No. 95/2009: Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for appellant Sri R.B. Agarwal, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Dated: 29.06.2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and award and common question of fact of law is involved in them, as such, they are being decided by this common judgment and order. These appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 13.11.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 55 of 2006, Jaipal Singh and others versus M/s Accum Drugs Pharmaceutical and others, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,15,000/- as 2 compensation along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition. The claimants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.50,30,000/- in lieu of death of their son-Sonu, who was dashed by vehicle bearing no. D.L.-3C-W- 7281, on 21.2.2006 at 2.30 p.m., near Sharda Motors, Sidcul, P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar, while he along with his friend was going by motorcycle no. U.A.08-3006 and succumbed to injuries sustained by him in the accident. It has also been alleged that vehicle no. D.L.-3C-W-7281 was being plied by its driver rashly and negligently at the time of accident. Opposite parties no. 1 and 2, owner and driver of vehicle no. D.L.3C-W-7281 contested the claim by filing their joint written statement and took the plea that they have no concern whatsoever with the alleged accident. Opposite party no. 3-insurance company filed its written statement and alleged that deceased himself is responsible for the accident, hence insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It has also been alleged that vehicle in question was not being plied with valid papers at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed necessary issues. Parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till 3 the date of actual payment, vide impugned judgment and award dated 13.11.2007. The Tribunal also directed that the insurance company, if it wishes so, may recover the awarded amount of compensation from the owner of offending vehicle in question. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the claimants have preferred A.O. No. 54/2008 for enhancement of amount of compensation, while owner of vehicle in question has preferred A.O. 95/2009 before this Court. Heard Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for claimants, Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for owner of vehicle in question (M/s Accum Drugs Pharmaceutical), Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (in A.O. No. 54/2008), Sri R.B. Agarwal, learned counsel for The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (in A.O. No. 95/2009) and perused the record. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted before this Court that learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as well as in selecting the multiplier of ‘11’ which is on lower side. He has further submitted that rate of interest as 5% awarded by the Tribunal is also on lower side. Learned counsel for the owner of vehicle in question has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in giving the recoverable rights to the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of vehicle in question. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurance company has supported the impugned award. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that impugned judgment and award suffers with 4 inherent infirmity. The Tribunal has directed insurance company to recover the awarded amount of compensation from the owner of vehicle only for the reason that accident is the result of rash and negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in question. This direction in any case cannot be held to be justified. The Tribunal on one hand has given the finding while deciding issue no. 5 that on the date of the accident insurance of offending vehicle in question was valid and all the papers relating to the said vehicle were valid. In case, if all the papers filed by the driver and the owner of vehicle were found to be valid and justified on the date of accident, then there was no occasion to issue direction by the Tribunal for recovery of the awarded amount of compensation from the owner of vehicle in question. I am of the view that this direction issued by the Tribunal that insurance company may recover the awarded amount of compensation from the owner of vehicle, is liable to be set aside. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal has discussed this aspect while deciding issue no. 1 in the impugned judgment and award. The learned Tribunal having considered the entire evidence adduced before it recorded the finding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle no. D.L.3C-W- 7281, in which Sonu @ Yogendra died. I do not find any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and the same is hereby affirmed. As far as amount of compensation to be 5 awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard appears to be erroneous on the ground that the Tribunal has assessed the amount of compensation on the basis of notional income treating to be Rs.15,000/- per annum. The accident in this case took place in the year 2006 and in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Shobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company and another, the notional income of a person during those years was treated to be Rs.36,000/- per annum keeping in view the price hike. After deducting one-third as the personal expenses of the deceased the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. The deceased in this case was unmarried; therefore, the age of the parents of the deceased is to be taken into account while assessing the amount of compensation. The age of the parents of the deceased in this case is 52 years and 50 years respectively. Therefore, by taking multiplier of ‘8’ in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in the cases of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Versus S. Rajpriya & others, reported in 2005 (4) SC 87, The Managing Director, TNSTC versus Sripriya & others, reported in 2007(5) Supreme 301, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana (Smt) and others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 94, the amount of compensation to be awarded in this case comes to Rs.24,000 x 8=Rs.1,92,000/-. The multiplier of ‘11’ as adopted by the Tribunal appears to be on higher side. The amount awarded by the Tribunal as Rs.5,000/- under other different heads shall remain intact. The rate of interest also indicated in the 6 impugned judgment and award needs no interference. On the basis of the aforesaid calculation, the total amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants comes to Rs.1,92,000 + Rs.5,000=Rs.1,97,000/-. For the reasons stated above, A.O. No. 54/2008 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- (Rupees one lac ninety seven thousand only) as compensation (instead of Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation awarded by the Tribunal) along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. A.O. No. 95/2009 filed by owner of vehicle, is also partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants shall be paid by the insurance company, not by the owner of offending vehicle in question. The direction issued by the Tribunal that insurance company may recover the amount of compensation from the owner of vehicle, is hereby set aside. The statutory amount deposited with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 95/2009. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 7 SP