IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 235 of 2008 Smt. Sapura Devi & another …Appellants Versus Hayat Singh Bisht & others …Respondents Sri N.S. Negi, Advocate for appellants Sri Vijay Khanduri, Advocate for respondents no. 1 & 2 Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no. 3 Dated: November 5, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the appellants- claimants, against the judgment and award dated 3.8.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli, in MACP No. 51 of 2006, Smt. Sapura Devi and another versus Hayat Singh Bisht and others. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before Claims Tribunal, for grant of compensation on account of death of deceased-Vijendra Singh in a motor vehicle accident alleging therein that on 21.10.2006 deceased-Vijendra Singh along with his wife was going to his village Kolson from Karnaprayag in Vehicle No. T.N.U.B.P.A.-9551. At 6.30 p.m. when the said vehicle reached at a distance of about 200 Mtr. from Link Road at Bagoli-Kolson motor road, it met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver-opposite party no. 2, as a consequence of which deceased-Vijendra Singh died 2 at the spot itself. The post mortem of deceased was conducted at District Hospital, Gopeshwar. The age of deceased was about 28 years at the time of accident. The deceased was working as goods supplier in Garhi Enterprises, Delhi and was earning a sum of Rs.9000/- per month at the time of accident. The claimants are legal heirs of deceased and were dependents upon him, therefore, they claimed proper compensation against the opposite parties. Opposite parties no. 1 and 2-owner and driver of vehicle in question filed their written statements admitting the date, time and place of accident as stated by claimants in the claim petition. They have pleaded that at the time of said accident driver of offending vehicle was holding valid driving licence and vehicle in question as comprehensively insured with opposite party no. 3-insurance company. They have also pleaded that offending vehicle in question was having all valid papers at the time of accident. They have further pleaded that the said accident occurred due to technical fault in the vehicle and therefore claimants are not entitled to get any compensation. Opposite party no. 3-insurance company filed its written statement denying the contents of claim petition and pleaded that at the time of alleged accident vehicle involved in the accident was not having valid registration certificate, insurance policy, driving licence, permit etc. Therefore, the claim petition filed by claimants deserves to be dismissed. 3 The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the material available before it and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- as compensation to the claimants, payable by opposite party no. 3-National Insurance Co. Ltd., along with an interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 3.8.2007. The Tribunal also directed that the entire amount of compensation was to be paid by insurance company within a period of one and half months from the date of judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dated 3.8.2007, the appellants-claimants have preferred the present appeal before this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation. Heard Sri N.S. Negi, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Vijay Khanduri, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2, Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has confined his argument to this aspect that amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is meager and it is liable to be enhanced by this Court. 4 As far as factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed all the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has come to the conclusion that the claimants has been successful in establishing this fact that deceased-Vijendra Singh was travelling in Vehicle No. T.N.U.B.P.A.- 9551 on 21.10.2006 and at about 6.30 in evening when the said vehicle reached at a distance of about 200 Mtr. from Link Road at Bagoli-Kolson motor road, it met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, as a consequence of which deceased-Vijendra Singh who was travelling in the said vehicle, died at the spot itself. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided the said issue in favour of claimants. I do not find any reason to disturb the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. The Tribunal further held that on the date of accident driver of offending vehicle in question was holding valid and effective driving licence and said vehicle was also having all valid papers relating to it. The Tribunal also held that offending vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimants is concerned, the record shows that accident took place in the year 2006. The notional income which has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal is Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deducting one-third out of it, the financial dependency of claimants has been 5 assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. The approach adopted by the Tribunal appears to be wrong in view of decision of 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, which propounds that notional income of a person in present days keeping in view the price hike should be taken into consideration as Rs.36,000/- per annum and after deducting one-third out of it the financial dependency of claimants should be assessed at Rs.24,000/- per annum. In the instant case, the financial dependency of claimants should have been Rs.24,000/- per annum instead of Rs.10,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. Therefore, keeping in view the age of deceased a just and proper multiplier to be adopted in this case should be ‘13’ instead of ‘15’ as has been adopted by the Tribunal. On the financial dependency of claimants, in case, if the multiplier of ‘13’ is adopted, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.24,000 x 13=Rs.3,12,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses which appears to be justified. On the basis of aforesaid calculation, the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants comes to Rs.3,12,000 + Rs.2,000=Rs.3,14,000/-, along with interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the 6 extent that the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants should be Rs.3,14,000/- (Three Lacs Fourteen Thousand only) instead of Rs.1,52,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest indicated in the impugned judgment and award. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP