MOHD. WASIM Vs. DURGA PRASAD PANDEY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) s appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 3rd December, 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad in Claim Petition No. 309/2009. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Karunesh Pandey was a young man of 27 years. On 5th July, 2007 at about 11.00 a.m., he was going on his motor-cycle with his wife Smt. Renu to visit a doctor as she was suffering from fever. When he was on Faizabad-Barabanki Highway at P.S. Raunahi, a Tata Truck No. UP 42-C 7431 was coming from the Faizabad whose driver was driving it negligently and rashly. The said truck hit the deceased, who was fallen down. Both the husband and wife were taken to the District Government Hospital, Faizabad where the deceased was declared as brought dead. The wife also got injuries. The claimants have filed a claim petition where a total compensation of Rs. 3,66,000/- was awarded alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of filing claim petition. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount to the claimants and got a right from the Tribunal to recover the same from the owner of the truck. Being aggrieved, the appellant who is the owner of the truck in question has filed the present appeal.

(2.) With this background, Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that earlier two claim petitions have been filed by Smt. Renu were dismissed by the Tribunal for want of evidence. But, in the instant petition, a compensation was wrongly awarded. However, he has not disputed the factum of the accident; death of the deceased; and his age. The only disputed point he raised is pertaining to the quantum. According to him, the quantum is on higher side. Further, he submits that the vehicle was duly insured by the Oriental Insurance Company, so the sole liability lies with the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, "right of recovery" was wrongly given by the Tribunal. Lastly, he made a request that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may kindly be set aside.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the material available on record. It is undisputed that the deceased Karunesh Pandey was a young man of 27 years and father of two children. He was working in M/s Farid Travel Agency. The Tribunal has taken the "notional income" for the purpose of compensation. By looking the age, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 18. Thus, the compensation came to Rs. 3,60,000/-. In addition/a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses; Rs. 2,500/- as loss of estate; and Rs. 1,500/- as litigation expenses were also awarded to the claimants. Thus, the total compensation was awarded Rs. 3,66,000/-. When the income was taken as "notional income" for the purpose of compensation, then the award is not on higher side and the same appears reasonable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.