IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 389 of 2005 Jogender Singh and another … Appellants Versus Girish Kumar and another … Respondents Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate for appellants Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: August 7, 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 17.01.2005 passed by MACT/D.J., Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. 262 of 2003, Jogender Singh & another vs. Girish Kumar and another. The claimants-Jogender Singh and another filed a claim petition before Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation in lieu of death of their son-Ranjeet Singh (deceased) in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants, on 24.10.2003 deceased was going to Paharpur from Bajpur by his cycle and when he reached near bridge of Vidaha Road, at about 12.30 p.m., driver of Swaraj Tractor No. U.P.04B/5624 came rashly and nelgigneltly from opposide side and dashed with cycle of deceased, due to which deceased-Ranjeet Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries during treatment. They have also alleged that at the time of accident 2 deceased was 26 years of age and was earning a sum of Rs.4000/- per month by working as Supervisor of Government Contractor. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation against opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1-owner of tractor in question filed claim petition admitting therein that he is the registered owner of Tractor No. U.P.04B/5624 and on the date of accident said tractor was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. It has also been stated that said tractor was being plied by driver-Intezar Ali who was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. Opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed written statement and pleaded that at the time of accident tractor in question was being plied by its driver unauthorizedly and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It also pleaded that at the time of accident owner of vehicle was not having valid papers of vehicle and driver of tractor in question was also not having valid and effective driving licence. It has further been stated that accident had taken place due to own negligence of deceased himself. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 3 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 Tribunal after having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.3,27,000/- in favour of claimants, payable by opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Company Ltd, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the claimants- appellants have filed this appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard Mohd. Azim, Advocate, on behalf of Sri B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for appellants, Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. As far as factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed all the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has recorded a categorical finding that at the time of accident in question Tractor No. U.P.04B/5624 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the deceased-Ranjeet Singh, who was going to Paharpur from Bajpur by his cycle, due to which deceased sustained grievous injuries on his person and died during treatment on 4 account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the Tribunal rightly assessed the financial dependency of claimants keeping in view the income of deceased. The multiplier of ‘10’ as adopted by the Tribunal also appears to be justified in view of Second Schedule given in Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. The rest of amount awarded by Tribunal under other different heads also appears to be just and reasonable, which is not to be disturbed. I, therefore, of the view that claimants have already been awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation which cannot be said to be meager amount in any manner. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. I also do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. As far as interest part is concerned, the Tribunal awarded interest @ 6% per annum in the impugned judgment and award, which appears to be on lower side and in my view, it should be 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified 5 to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get an interest @ 7.5% per annum on the awarded amount of compensation, from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment (instead of interest @ 6% per annum as has been awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award). (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 6