IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 509 of 2006 United India Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Smt. Saroj Bala & others … Respondents Sri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 24.05.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District Judge in Claim Petition No. 214 of 2004 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,86,395/- as compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.05.2004 at about 08:45 p.m., Nand Kishore was going on his scooter bearing registration No. UP21E/9406 to police Station Bijnore. When he reached near Village Ismilpur, one truck bearing registration No. HR38/5717, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the said scooter, due to which Nand Kishore sustained serious injuries and during the course of his treatment he had died in the night. The claimants were dependent upon the deceased. According to the claim petition, the deceased was working in the Uttar Pradesh Police and used to earn Rs. 12,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Opposite party No. 1 – Sukrapal Singh (owner of the truck in question) has contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal denying the allegations 2 made in the claim petition. It has pleaded that on the date of accident the truck in question was being driven by its driver on his side in a very cautious manner and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. The driver of the truck was having the valid and effective driving licence. It has further pleaded that the claimant did not make the party to the insurer of the scooter and the amount of compensation claimed in the petition is on the higher side. Therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. Opposite party No. 2 – United India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement alleging therein that the truck in question was being plied in breach of policy. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It has further pleaded that on the date of accident the driver of the truck was not having the valid driving licence and the owner of the truck was not having the documents pertaining to the truck in question. Therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. In support of their case both the parties led evidence. 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. 3,86,395/- in favour of the claimants vide judgment and award dated 24.05.2006, against the United India Insurance Company. 3 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd. preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and perused the record. 8. Perusal of the record shows that the Tribunal decided issue No. 1 relating to the rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal on the basis of the statement of Savendra Kumar (P.W.3) who has stated in his statement that the driver of the truck left the same at some distance. It has come to my notice that the report was lodged against the unknown vehicle whereas from the perusal of the statement of the driver as well as owner that the driver of the truck was plying the truck cautiously, it is clear that the accident took place by the truck in question. From the perusal of the sight plan which is paper No. 20C/7, it reveals that the scooter was going on his side in a cautious speed. The Tribunal after going through the entire record as well as evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent of the driver of the truck. I am in total agreement with the finding with regard to the rash and negligent driving. 9. From the perusal of paper No. 5C/3, it is also not disputed that on the date of accident, the truck in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Further, from the perusal of paper No. 14B/13, it reveals that the driver of the truck was having the valid driving licence on the date of accident. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation 4 without considering the material available on record. He has submitted that the amount of compensation appears to be on the higher side. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not assessed the evidence on record and imposed the whole liability upon the appellant/United Insurance Company Ltd. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has contended that the Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. The Tribunal on the basis of the record, assessed the income of the deceased and thereafter awarded the amount of compensation. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parting and going through the entire record available before me, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned the Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 37,940/-and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs. 25,293/- per annum. The Tribunal further considering the age of the deceased as 42 years adopted the multiplier of ‘15’ which appears to be perfectly justified. After adopting the multiplier of ‘15’ the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,79,395/-. Further the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium. In this way, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,86,395/-, which appears perfectly reasonable. I do not find any ground at this stage to interfere in the impugned award. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5 13. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 14. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 24.05.2006 is confirmed. 15. The statutory amount deposited before this Court by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 11.09.2008 ASWAL