B.C. Kandpal, J.@mdashThis appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 22.01.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 86 of 2002, Smt. Jagwati Devi v. Pramod Kumar Agarwal and Ors.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.11.2000 at about 04:00 p.m., the deceased - Rajesh Kumar was going on foot from Shani Temple, Shyampur to Sajjanpur, Pilli Village. He was walking on the extreme left side of the road, suddenly, a truck bearing registration No. UPN/8975, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, due to which the driver of the truck lost control over it and it overturned on the side of the road. In this accident, Rajesh Kumar sustained serious injuries and he was admitted in the Haridwar Hospital, where the doctors declared him dead. Smt. Jagwati Devi is the mother of the deceased, therefore, she has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. According to the claim petition, at the time of the accident, the deceased was 25 years of age and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month as a television mechanic.
3. Sri Promod Kumar Agarwal - owner of the truck in question contested the claim petition by filing written statement alleging therein that on the date of accident the driver of the truck was having the valid driving licence and the truck in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability of compensation, lies upon the insurer of the vehicle. Sri Kamal Kumar - driver of the truck in question in spite of sufficient service, did not appear before the court below, hence, the court below proceeded against him ex-parte.
4. United India Insurance Company Ltd./appellant also contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal denying most of the allegations made in the claim petition. It has also pleaded that the driver of the truck was not having the valid and effective driving licence and the truck in question was being plied in breach of policy. Therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed against the applicant/insurer of the tractor.
5. 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 case. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2003.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/insurer of tractor preferred this appeal before this Court.
7. The record shows that in spite of sufficient service upon the opposite parties, neither the respondents nor any counsel is appearing before this Court. Hence, heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point of gratuitous passenger. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error by holding that the deceased was walking on the side of the road whereas the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the truck in question. In order to support his version, he has invited my attention towards paper No. 68C1/2, which does not show that the deceased was walking on the side of the road.
9. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and going through the record as well as impugned judgment and award, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly decided the claim petition against the appellant/insurer of the vehicle in question. The Tribunal on the basis of the statement of Rajendra Singh (P.W.2), who was the actual eyewitness of the accident, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck No. UPN/8975. He has submitted that on the date of accident, the deceased - Rajesh Kumar was going towards Shivmandir along with his colleagues, suddenly, a truck bearing registration No. UPN/8975 which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, overturned. In this accident, Rajesh and his companions sustained serious injuries and they were taken to the Hospital at Haridwar. He came to know about the death of the deceased - Rajesh, when his relatives came to Shyampur Hotel for enquiring about the Rajesh. He has further submitted that on the date of accident he was standing about 20 to 25 foot away from the scene of the accident. The appellant/insurer of the truck in question neither cross examined this witness nor had produced any witness to controvert the statement of this witness. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck No. UPN/8975. As far as the submission advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant relating to the gratuitous passenger is concerned, there is nothing on record, which may prove that on the date of accident, the deceased was travelling in the truck in question as a gratuitous passenger.
10. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken into account the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The claimant has not produced any document, which may show the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal took the annual notional income as Rs. 15,000/- for calculating the amount of compensation and after deducting 1/3rd the financial dependency of the claimant the said amount comes to Rs. 10,000/-. The deceased was unmarried person, therefore, the Tribunal taken into account the age of the mother in order to calculate the amount of compensation. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record considered the age of the claimant as 53 years and adopted the multiplier of ''11'' as mentioned in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After adopting the multiplier of ''11'', the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,10,000/- (10000 X 11). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental pain and agony. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,22,000/-. The Tribunal awarded amount of compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum, which also appears to be justified. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation in favour of the claimants appears to be justified. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
12. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.
