IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 497 of 2005 Arun Kumar Jaiswal & others … Appellants Versus Dilshad & others … Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, for the appellants Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate, for respondent no. 3 Sri N. S. Negi, Advocate, for respondent no. 2 Dated: April 9, 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 1.8.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Dehradun, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 258 of 2003. The claimants filed claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 24,10,000/- on account of death of Sri Vimal Jaiswal in motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants, on 17.9.2003 at 9.00 a.m. deceased was driver of Vikram Tempo No. U.P.- 07-J-2139 and was proceeding from Prem Nagar Market to Dehradun city. Kullu son of Mumtaz was also sitting in it. When the Vikram reached near Shiv Temple, Prem Nagar, Bus No. U.P. No. 07-A- 2927 being driven rashly and negligently by opposite party no. 2-Dilshad, hit the Vikram causing injuries to the driver of Vikram-Vimal Jaiswal and Kullu. It also caused damage to Vikram Tempo. The deceased-Vimal Jaiswal was admitted first at Doon Hospital, then to C.M.I. and ultimately he was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh where he died on 22.9.2003 on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. The deceased was unmarried and income of the deceased was shown as Rs. 5000/- per month and he was 22 years of age at the time of accident. The claimants thus claimed for a sum of Rs. 24,10,000/- as compensation. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied the accident and alleged that the petition was filed against them for the compensation is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party no. 3-New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed written statement denying the contention of the petition. It has alleged that the amount claimed is excessive and income of the deceased was not Rs. 5000/- per month. It has also alleged that petition is bad for non-joinder of insurance company of the Vikram Tempo. The alleged accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Vikram Tempo. The insurance company has reserved the right to contest the petition under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act and the petition filed against insurance company is liable to be dismissed. 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. 2,75,000/- as compensation, in favour of claimants, payable by opposite party no. 3-New India Assurance Company Ltd., along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of recovery. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri N. S. Negi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has contented that the Tribunal has committed mistake in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month as well as in adopting the multiplier of ‘10’ and, therefore, the amount of compensation as has been awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced by this Court. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award thoroughly. The evidence and record shows that PW-2-Kullu, who is the eye witness of the accident and was sitting in Vikram Tempo at the time of accident, has deposed in his deposition that as soon as Vikram Tempo reached near Shiv Temple at Prem Nagar, Bus No. U.P. 07-A-2927 which was being driven rashly and negligently, hit the Vikram Tempo causing the injuries to the deceased and this witness (Kullu). He has also deposed that Vikram was on the left side on the Kuccha Patri of the road. Both of them became unconscious after getting the injuries. Later on deceased-Vimal Jaiswal died on 22.9.2003 at P.G.I. Chandigarh. He has also deposed that the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of bus driver. This witness in his cross examination stated that bus was at the speed of 60 Kms. per hour. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties to this effect that the accident was taken place on account of negligence on the part of driver of Vikram Tempo. Therefore, in my view, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus driver and there is no fault of the deceased-Vimal Jaiswal being driver of Vikram Tempo. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the record reveals that PW-3 Sri Ram Saxena has proved the certificate paper No. 33-Ka in which it is mentioned that driver of Vikram was paid Rs. 150/- per day. The Vikram was owned by the deceased himself and he was not employed anywhere. Therefore, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/-, which appears to be justified. It is an admitted case that deceased was an unmarried at the time of accident and therefore for calculating the amount of compensation the age of the parents would be material and in the instant case the age of parents of the deceased is 52 years and 45 years respectively. In this way, the total annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 3000 x 12= Rs. 36,000/-. Keeping in view the age of the parents, multiplier of ‘10’ as has been adopted by the Tribunal appears to be just and adequate and after adopting the multiplier of ‘10’, the financial dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 36000 x 10= Rs.3,60,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 2,40,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 2000/- as cremation charges, Rs. 5000/- each to claimants no. 1 and 2, towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses and in this way, the Tribunal awarded total amount of compensation of Rs. 2,72,000/- approximately say Rs. 2,75,000/-, which appears to be just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference. The interest as has been indicated in the award also does not require any interference. In view of above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP