IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 92 of 2006 Nand Kishore and 2 others .. Appellants. Vs. Bhagat Singh Bisht and another .. Respondents. Mr. Anil Kumar Sah, Advocate for the appellants. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr. R.G. Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Dated: 14-05-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 18-11-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in MACT Case No. 141 of 2005. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal are that on 13.3.2005, at about 2 P.M. deceased Arvind Kumar boarded the Bus No. U.P. 08-3070 from Mussorrie to Dhanolti. When the said bus reached near P.P.C.L. Gate, it met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver. Deceased Arvind Kumar sustained grievous injuries in the accident and died at the spot. The deceased at the time of accident was 33 years of age and he was employed as Supervisor in Govind Ballabh Pant University Ranichaur. His monthly salary was Rs. 17,000/-. The claimants filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. Twenty lacs. 3- The Opposite Party, owner of the offending bus filed written statement and alleged that the bus was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The 2 driver had valid driving license and the bus was insured with New India Assurance Company. 4- The Opposite Party No.2/ New India Assurance Company also contested the case by filing its written statement and alleged that the vehicle was being driven against the conditions of insurance policy. The claimants have claimed an exorbitant amount. 5- The Tribunal framed issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, parties adduced evidence. The Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- payable by New India Assurance Company along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the actual date of payment. 6- Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement before this Court. 7- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent Insurance Company and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has ignored the evidence on record and awarded a meager amount of compensation and the same is liable to be enhanced. 9- On the other hand learned counsel for the insurance company has opposed the submission and supported the impugned judgment and award. 3 10- The only point to be considered in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal has awarded a just and proper amount of compensation, or it is on lesser side?. 11- According to claimants the deceased Arvind Kumar at the time of accident was employed as Supervisor in Govind Ballabh Pant University Ranichaur and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 17,000/-. The claimants are parents and unmarried sister of the deceased. The claimant Smt. Savitri Devi P.W.1 has deposed this fact that her son was getting Rs. 17,000/- per month. Salary certificate paper No. 7-C/3 has been filed and according to this certificate the salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 17,000/- per month, the annual income being Rs. 2,04,000/-. The Tribunal has deduced the income tax of Rs. 34,000/- and after deducting this amount the balance annual income was taken to be Rs. 1,70,000/-. The age of the deceased as per the post mortem report was 33 years and he was unmarried. The Tribunal has taken the age of parents of the deceased and adopted the multiplier of 5 between the age group of 60 and 65. After making 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses, the Tribunal has taken the annual dependency of Rs. 1,10,000/- and after multiplying the said amount with 5 the total dependency comes to Rs. 1,10,000/- X 5 = Rs. 5,50,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest on the amount of compensation @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. In view of above calculation, I do not find any irregularity and illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal. I do not find it a case where the amount of compensation should be enhanced. 12- The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4 13- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 18-11-2005 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB