IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. NO. 519 OF 2007 Smt. Bila Devi and 4 others .. Appellants. Versus Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 3 others.. Respondents. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.1. None has appeared for other respondents. Dated: 11-8-2008 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 17-10-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. 113/2006. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that on 19-4-2006 Dev Dutt was driving the Bus No. UP 21-L-9853 owned by U.P. Transport Corporation Moradabad Depot from Dehradun to Moradabad. At about 4.30 P.M. when the said bus reached near village Roshanpur Pratap on Nagina Kotwali Marg, Truck No. U.P. 12-4191 coming from Nagina in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Roadways bus due to which Dev Dutt died after sustaining grievous injuries. The deceased at the time of accident was 39 years of age and was getting Rs. 5037/- per month as salary as a driver. Therefore, the claimants, filed claim petition for compensation in lieu of death of Dev Dutt. 3- The Opposite Party No. 1 U.P. S.R.T.C. contested the claim petition and filed its written 2 statement. It alleged that the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligence of truck driver dashed with the bus. It also alleged that the bus was insured with Oriental Insurance Company. 4- Opposite Party No.2, owner of the offending truck did not contest the petition inspite of service, hence the petition was heard and decided exparte against him. 5- The Opposite Party No.3, New India Assurance Company, insurer of Truck No. U.P. 12-4191 also contested the claim petition and alleged that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligence of driver of both the vehicles and their liability is in equal part. 6- The Opposite Party No.4, Oriental Insurance Company, insurer of Bus No. UP 21-L- 9853 also contested the claim petition and alleged that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligence of truck driver and the petition is bad for non-joinder of that driver as party in the petition. 7- The learned Tribunal, on the pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the petition. Thereafter the claimants produced oral as well as documentary evidence. However, the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. 8- The learned Tribunal on hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,10,200/- as compensation against the New India Assurance Company along with interest @ 7% per annum from 10-5-2006 till the actual date of payment. 3 9- Feeling aggrieved, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement. 10- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent U.P. S.R.T.C. and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 inspite of sufficient service. 11- Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred by not taking into consideration the prospects of future as increasement in salary as well as promotion in service of the deceased. 12- I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Tribunal has framed issue No.3 on the quantum of compensation. The deceased Dev Dutt was posted as driver in U.P. S.R.T.C. and his salary certificate has been filed on record, according to which the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 5,715/- and after usual deductions his take home salary was Rs. 5,065/- per month. The salary has been proved by P.W.3, Rajju Prasad, Clerk, posted in Moradabad Roadways. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly dependency of the claimants at Rs. 2,800/-, the annual dependency being Rs. 33,600/-. The learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that according to claimant the deceased used to give Rs. 4,000/- per month for house expenses and she is also getting pension. The Tribunal, therefore, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and taking into consideration the pension, which she was getting due to death of her husband, has assessed the month dependency. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be 4 said to be unreasonable. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of ‘12’ at the age of 40 years and the compensation was assessed 33,600/- X 12= Rs. 4,03,200/-. Besides it, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total being Rs. 4,03,200/- + Rs. 2,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- = Rs. 4,10,200/-. I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 13- Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and the same should be enhanced. 14- This submission of learned counsel has also no substance. Perusal of impugned award reveals that the Tribunal has awarded an interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. In my opinion the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable rate of interest and cannot be said on lower side. 15- In view of above discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 17-10-2007 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5