IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 360 of 2008 Smt. Rekha Tomar & another … Appellants Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others … Respondents Sri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 02.06.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 138 of 2005, Sanjeev Kumar & others Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.10.2005, the deceased – Vinod Kumar was going to his workplace at Haridwar from his Village Atlampur Bongla, District Haridwar. At about 02:00 p.m., when the deceased reached near Uncha Pul Bhurshah Majar, Jawalapur, District Haridwar, suddenly, a truck bearing registration No. HR37/5455, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, due to which he received serious injuries. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, where the doctors declared him dead. According to the claim petition, on the date of accident, the deceased was 49 years of age and he used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claimants are the family members of the deceased and were dependents upon the deceased. Hence, an amount of Rs. 7,75,000/- was claimed as compensation. 2 3. Thereafter, notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of notices, the opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement before the Tribunal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their cases. 4. 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. 2,18,200/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment as compensation vide judgment and award dated 02.06.2008. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement. 6. Heard Sri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company and perused the record. 7. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed this point while deciding issue No. 1 along with issue No. 4, as both the issues are connected to each other. In order to support their case, the claimants have produced the copy of First Information Report, which was lodged by Sanjeev Kumar (P.W. 1). Sri Amit Kumar was examined as P.W.2 who has stated in his deposition that on the date of accident, he was present at the spot. He has stated that the deceased was 60-70 meter far from them. He has also stated that at about 02:00 p.m., a truck bearing registration 3 No. HR37/5455, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased. This witness has further stated that the driver of the truck ran away from the place of accident. Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.2) corroborated the version of P.W.1. Sanjeev Kumar filed the postmortem report, chargesheet and inquest report in support of his case. On the other hand – Karam Singh (D.W.1) has stated that on 25.10.2005, he was going from Aryanagar to Jwalapur and was driving the truck very cautiously. When he was crossing the Railway bridge, suddenly, a scooter, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, came in front of the truck and collided with it. He has further alleged that he had gone to police station for lodging the complaint, but the police did not lodge the complaint. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal considering this aspect that Karan Singh (D.W.1) himself was driving the truck in question and in order to save himself concealed the actual fact of the case and considered the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HM37/5455. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 8. The Tribunal further after considering the papers available on record rightly held that the driver of the truck was having the valid and effective driving licence and the truck in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of accident. The findings recorded by the Tribunal do not require any interference at this stage. 4 9. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,500/- and considering the age of the deceased as 49 years adopted the multiplier of ‘11’ which appears to be perfectly just and reasonable and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,11,200/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- under other different heads, which does not require any interference at this stage. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award by which the amount of compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 10. So far as the direction issued by the Tribunal pertaining to payment of awarded amount is concerned, the Tribunal has fell in error in directing all the respondents to make payment of the amount of compensation jointly and severely, in the event when it has been found that the driver of the truck was having valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company and no breach of policy was committed. The Tribunal should have directed the Insurance Company alone to make the payment of the awarded amount. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, so far as the liability of payment of awarded amount is concerned. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the insurer of the vehicle i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay the amount of compensation. 13. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 22.07.2009 ASWAL