IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 840 of 2006 Abdul Nabi and another … Appellants Versus Dinesh Singh Bora and another … Respondents Sri Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for appellants Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Sri R.B. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: June 19, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 21.9.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/FTC Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 108 of 2004, Abdul Nabi & another vs. Dinesh Singh Bora and another. Brief facts of the case are that deceased-Abdul Aziz met with an accident on 15.5.2004 at about 3.45 p.m. When deceased was coming from Pantnagar to Haldi one Dumper bearing Registration No. U.A.04/0041 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased due to which deceased Abdul Aziz died. The deceased was an earning member of family and was getting Rs.4500/- per month by serving with a road contractor Mr. Mohd. Ali and was also getting Rs.1500/- per month by pulling rickshaw in part time. The claimants are the father and mother of deceased-Abdul Aziz. 2 The opposite party no. 1 filed written statement and admitted that he was the registered owner of Dumper and on the date of accident all the papers of vehicle in question were valid. He has stated that on the date of accident fitness and registration of vehicle in question was valid. The vehicle in question was insured with opposite party no. 2-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident. It has also been stated that the driver of vehicle in question was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and all the papers of vehicle were valid. The opposite party no. 2-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. filed written statement and pleaded that at the time of accident driver of dumper was not holding valid and effective driving licence. It has also been pleaded that driver of offending vehicle i.e. dumper was not made party, therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of party. The Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs2,28,400/- in favour of claimants, payable by opposite party no. 2-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 21.09.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants have preferred this appeal 3 before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for appellants, Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, lerned counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri R.B. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount of award granted by the Tribunal is meager and liable to be enhanced by this Court. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. The record reveals that the deceased was working as Foreman with the contractor. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.4500/- from his job but no cogent and reliable evidence has been produced by the claimants in order to establish the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the Division Bench of this Court passed in A.O. No. 2 of 2005, Shobhan Singh and another vs. New India Insurance Company and another, decided on 1.11.2006, the notional income is to be taken into consideration and as per the notional income the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd out of it the financial dependency of claimants comes to Rs.24,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 22-23 years at the time of his death and he was unmarried. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the amount 4 of compensation the age of parents would be relevant to be taken into consideration. The age of parents in the instant case is 45 years and 43 years respectively. Therefore, keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman Iyer & another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 731, the multiplier in case where the claimants are parents of the deceased, should not travel more than ‘10’. If the multiplier of ‘10’ is adopted in the instant case, the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants comes to Rs.24,000 x 10=Rs.2,40,000/-. The multiplier of ‘13’ adopted by the Tribunal is on higher side and is liable to be set aside. The claimants are also entitled for a further sum of Rs.2,000/- under the head of expenses towards cremation of the deceased, instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants shall be Rs.2,42,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand only), instead of Rs.2,28,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP