JUDGMENT Since all the three appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) have arisen out of the same motor vehicle accident, therefore, for the sake of convenience they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. A.O. No. 250 of 2007 is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.11.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Aditional District Judge, FTC-I Dehradun (for short the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 215 of 2003, Smt. Adarsh Bhatia and another Vs. Smt. Shyamarani and others, whereby the claim petition was partly decreed against the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and the Insurance Company – O.P. No. 3 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,25,406/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as compensation within a period of 1½ month to the claimants from the date of claim petition till the date of payment as mentioned in the impugned award. On the other hand, the claimant-respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed Cross-objection (No. 1711 of 2008) in the appeal and have claimed that the learned Tribunal has committed error in computing the income of the deceased. 3. A.O. No. 423 of 2007 is directed against the judgment and impugned award dated 2.6.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 193 of 2004 Shri Gurdayal Vs. Smt. Shyama Rani and others, whereby a sum of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded as compensation in favour of the injured-claimant as against the New India Insurance Company as mentioned in the impugned award. This appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation by the claimant-appellant. 4. A.O. No. 424 of 2007 is directed against the judgment and impugned award dated 2.6.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 214 of 2003 Smt. Rajrani Bhatia and another Vs. Smt. Shyamrani and 4 others, whereby a sum of Rs. 3,63,310/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants as against the New India Insurance Company as mentioned in the impugned award. This appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation by the claimant-appellant. This appeal has also been filed for enhancement of compensation. 5. 3,63,310/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants as against the New India Insurance Company as mentioned in the impugned award. This appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation by the claimant-appellant. This appeal has also been filed for enhancement of compensation. 5. Relevant facts, giving rise to the present appeal, in brief are that on 8.8.2003 at about 10 p.m. one Kedarnath Bhatia accompanied by his nephews Sunil Bhatia and Wing Commander Satish Bhatia and friend Gurudayal Singh was travelling by Maruti Zen Car No. CH-03-2836 from Harbartpur to main Chakrata road. The said car was being driven by Sunil Bhatia carefully and at low speed. When they reached about 4 km. ahead from Harbartpur at Langha Road crossing Chakrata, offending vehicle Tata Truck No. UP 12D-9558, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and coming at high speed from the opposite direction, hit the car with great impact with the result the occupants of the car suffered grievous injuries. The driver of the offending truck was apprehended at the spot. The other members of the injured persons and their friends, who were travelling by other cars close behind the illfated car, brought the injured to the hospital but Kedar Nath Bhatia and Sunil Bhatia succumbed to their accidental injuries in the way. Separate claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal by the legal representatives of the deceased. It has been alleged that the offending truck was owned by Smt. Shyama Rani and it was being driven by Brijesh Kumar. The offending truck was duly insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Town Hall Muzaffarnagar. 6. Smt. Adarsh Bhatia and another, who are legal heirs of deceased Sunil Bhatia have filed Claim Petition No. 215 of 2003, wherein it has been alleged that deceased Sunil Bhatia was aged about 49 years at the time of his accidental death and was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month from his business as commission agent. Smt. Adarsh Bhatia is his wife while Anuj Bhatia is his son. In the claim petition, compensation of Rs. 35,00,000/- has been claimed for the death of the deceased. 7. Claim Petition No. 193 of 2004 was filed under Section 166 of the Act for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- per month from his business as commission agent. Smt. Adarsh Bhatia is his wife while Anuj Bhatia is his son. In the claim petition, compensation of Rs. 35,00,000/- has been claimed for the death of the deceased. 7. Claim Petition No. 193 of 2004 was filed under Section 166 of the Act for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- by injured Gurudayal Singh who suffered grievous injuries in different parts of his body including head, eye, face, chest, hands and legs in the same motor vehicle accident. It has been alleged that the right eye of the injured was damaged and sight has become weak. The injured was hospitalized in the hospital from 8.8.2003 to 18.8.2003. It was also alleged that due to injury on the leg, he was bed ridden for about six months and steel rod was inserted in his leg. It has also been alleged that the claimant was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident, but due to accidental injuries he is incapacitated to drive car and to continue his employment. He has sustained permanent disability. It has also been alleged that the injured incurred expenditure of Rs. 3,00,000/- on his treatment and also suffered loss of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 8. Claim petition No. 214 of 2003 was preferred Smt. Rajrani Bhatia and her son for the death of Kedar Nath Bhatia in the motor vehicle accident, alleging that the deceased was aged 78 years and earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month from business of commission agents (Arathi). 9. In all the three claim petitions, written statements were filed only by the driver of the offending vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle. No written statement was filed by the owner of the offending truck. In his written statement the driver of the vehicle has denied the allegations made in the claim petitions. He has asserted that the truck No. UP 12D-9558 belonged to Smt. Shyamrani. The truck was duly insured on the date of accident and the driver was having a valid driving licence. The compensation claimed is excessive and the insurer is liable to pay compensation. 10. The Insurance Company filed its written statement in each claim petition asserting that the claim petition is not legally maintainable. The truck was duly insured on the date of accident and the driver was having a valid driving licence. The compensation claimed is excessive and the insurer is liable to pay compensation. 10. The Insurance Company filed its written statement in each claim petition asserting that the claim petition is not legally maintainable. It has also been pleaded that the deceased Sunil Bhatia was driving the ill-fated car rashly and negligently and on seeing the truck, he lost control. The truck was on its left side and at moderate speed. The Insurance Company is not liable for compensation. 11. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following issues in Claim Petition No. 215 of 2003 Smt. Adarsh Bhatia Vs. Shyamrani and others :- 1. Whether on 8.8.2003 at 10 p.m. at Langha Road Crossing, Chakrata Road Dehradun, when deceased (Sunil Bhatia) was driving his Maruti Zen Car No. CH-03-2836 and coming to Dehradun, Tata Truck No. UP-12D-9558 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the car of the deceased with the result Sunil Bhatia succumbed to his injuries at the spot? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation due to accidental death of Sunil Bhatia on the said date, time and place? If so, from which O.P.? 12. In Claim Petition No. 193 of 2004, Gurudayal Singh Vs. Smt. Shyamrani and others the following issues were framed by the Tribunal :- 1. Whether on 8.8.2003 at 10 p.m. when injured along with his companion and their family was coming back from Harbartpur by Maruti Zen Car No. CH-03-2836, the Tata Truck No. UP 07D-9558, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the car with the result Gurudayal Singh Kukreja sustained grievous injuries. 2. Whether all the papers of the vehicle involved in the accident were valid and effective and the driver was having a valid driving licence? 3. Whether the claimant being injured in the accident at the said date, time and place is entitled to compensation? If so, from which O.P.? 4. Relief. 13. The following issues were framed in Claim Petition No. 214 of 2003 Smt. Rajrani Bhatia and another Vs. Smt. Shyamrani and others :- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. U.P. 12-D-9558? If so, its effect? 2. If so, from which O.P.? 4. Relief. 13. The following issues were framed in Claim Petition No. 214 of 2003 Smt. Rajrani Bhatia and another Vs. Smt. Shyamrani and others :- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. U.P. 12-D-9558? If so, its effect? 2. Whether the alleged accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Vehicle No. CH-03-2836? If so, its effect? 3. Whether the applicants are entitled to any compensation? If so, its amount and from whom? 4. Relief? 14. The learned Tribunal recorded the evidence led by the parties, heard them and after perusing the oral as well as documentary evidence led in the claim petitions, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was established from the evidence that an F.I.R. was lodged at Crime No. 92/2003 under Section 279, 304A, 338 I.P.C. at Police Station Sahaspur against the driver of the offending truck and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted to the court against the driver Brijesh Kumar. It was also held that the motor accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending Tata Truck No. UP 12-D-9558, which resulted into the death of deceased Sunil Bhatia and Kedar Nath Bhatia and grievous injuries to Gurudayal and Satish Bhatia. Learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the deceased Sunil Bhatia who was driving the ill-fated Maruti Car was not responsible for the motor accident. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that there were valid papers in respect of the offending truck involved in the accident and there was no violation of permit conditions. It was also held that the driver of the offending truck was having valid driving licence. 15. On the question of quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the annual income of the deceased Sunil Bhatia was Rs. 1,05,392/-. Out of this amount, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The age of the deceased was taken to be 49 years. The loss of dependency was assessed @ Rs. 70,362/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 to work out the total amount of compensation i.e. 70,362 x 23 = Rs. 9,13,406. The learned Tribunal further awarded amount of Rs. The age of the deceased was taken to be 49 years. The loss of dependency was assessed @ Rs. 70,362/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 to work out the total amount of compensation i.e. 70,362 x 23 = Rs. 9,13,406. The learned Tribunal further awarded amount of Rs. 5,000/- each for loss of consortium and loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, a total of compensation of Rs. 9,25,406/- has been awarded to the claimants Smt. Adarsh Bhatia and her son Anuj Bhatia as mentioned earlier by impugned award dated 2.6.2007. 16. As regards quantum of compensation of injured Gurudayal Singh Kukreja, the learned Tribunal did not rely upon the medical expenses bills of the claimant as they were not properly proved. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in lumpsum towards medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings, thereby a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded. 17. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the annual income of the deceased Kedar Nath Bhatia was Rs. 1,05,392/-. Out of this amount, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The age of the deceased was taken to be 78 years. The loss of dependency was assessed. @ Rs. 70,362/- per annum and taking into consideration of the age of the deceased, i.e. 78 years, a multiplier of 5 was applied to work out the total compensation, which was worked out Rs. 3,51,310/-. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs. 5,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, thereby the claim petition was partly allowed and a compensation of Rs. 3,63,310/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant Smt. Rajrani Bhatia and Tejendra Bhatia, as mentioned in the impugned award dated 2.6.2007. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 19. Learned Senior Advocate Sri V.K. Kohli appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company in A.O. No. 250 of 2007 has vehemently argued that there was head on collision between two vehicles, therefore, learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the owner of the offending truck No. UP-12D-9558 and it was a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on each side. 20. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not convincing at all. 20. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not convincing at all. Claimant Smt. Adarsh Bhatia has examined herself before the learned Tribunal. She has categorically stated that she, her son Anuj, daughter Aashima and servant were coming by another car behind the illfated car at the relevant time. She also stated that the offending truck being driven rashly and negligently by its driver had come to the extreme right side at the place of accident and again turned towards left side abruptly in a very negligent manner and hit the ill-fated car face to face. The offending truck also dragged the ill-fated car for about 20-25 ft. on Kuchcha side with the result her husband and Kedarnath suffered fatal injuries in the accident. The speed of the Car No. CH-03-2836 was very low and moderate at the time of accident. She also stated that the truck driver was apprehended by the people at the spot and he confessed his guilt and tendered apology. The learned Tribunal has elaborately dealt with this aspect of the matter on issue No. 1. Besides, the oral evidence led by the claimants, it is also obvious from the documentary evidence on record that the F.I.R. was lodged and case was registered at Crime No. 92 of 2003 under Section 279, 304A and 338 I.P.C. against the driver of the offending truck at Police Station Sahaspur and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the driver Brijesh Kumar in the court of the Magistrate. This circumstance also goes to indicate that the accident had occurred on account of sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck. From a perusal of the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that it is not a case of head on collision as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, rather the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck, who had swerved the truck firstly towards extreme right and again suddenly towards left side of the road. I concur with the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 1 that the accident in question had taken place due to sole rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck No. UP-12D-9558. 21. I concur with the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 1 that the accident in question had taken place due to sole rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck No. UP-12D-9558. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the multiplier of 13 applied by the learned Tribunal is on higher side and taking into considering the age of the deceased, who was aged about 49 years at the time of his accidental death, multiplier of 10 ought to have been applied to workout the amount of compensation. 22. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in support of the cross objection has submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the deceased for the year ending 31.3.2002, while the annual income for the year 2002-2003 should have been considered. 23. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties on the issue. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents that the income of the deceased as on 31.3.2003 was not considered in computing the compensation, the same is not acceptable. A perusal of record shows that the income tax return was filed after the death of the deceased Sunil Bhatia. Paper No. 45-C/1 shows that Sunil Bhatia had received salary of Rs. 55,200/- and profit of Rs. 50,192/-, total Rs. 1,05,392/-. It admitted case of the claimant-respondents that the deceased was a businessman/commission agent. It is admitted to the claimants that after the death of the deceased Sunil Bhatia, a new Partnership Firm was formed and the claimant Adarsh Bhatia is also one of the Partners in that Firm. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claimants-respondents had completely parted with the assets of the business established by the deceased. The learned Tribunal has dealt with the income part of the deceased in detail on Issue No. 2 from page 10 to 15 of the impugned award. I fully concur with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hold that for the purposes of loss of dependency, the annual income @ Rs. The learned Tribunal has dealt with the income part of the deceased in detail on Issue No. 2 from page 10 to 15 of the impugned award. I fully concur with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hold that for the purposes of loss of dependency, the annual income @ Rs. 1,05,392/- has been rightly worked out on the basis of the documentary evidence available on record including income tax return filed by the deceased and out of this amount, 1/3rd has been rightly deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and loss of annual dependency has been properly worked out to the tune of Rs. 70,362/-. The income tax return for the year 2002-2003 was filed after the death of the deceased and, therefore, same has been rightly ignored by the learned Tribunal. This part of the finding on Issue No. 2 does not call for any interference by this Court. 24. Now, it has to be examined whether the multiplier of 13 as applied by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, multiplier of 10 ought to have been applied. He has placed reliance upon the case of Rani Gupta and others Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others [2009 (2) T.A.C. Page 745 (S.C.)]. In that case, the deceased was a businessman, aged 46 years. The learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 but in appeal before the High Court, the multiplier was reduced from 13 to 10. The Apex Court has upheld the application of multiplier of 10 in that case. The ratio of the case cannot be disputed. 25. The Apex Court by a recent judgment dated 15th April 2009, in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 121], has held in paragraph no. 41 and 42 as under :- “41. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. The ratio of the case cannot be disputed. 25. The Apex Court by a recent judgment dated 15th April 2009, in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 121], has held in paragraph no. 41 and 42 as under :- “41. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas [set out in Column (2) of the table above]; some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, [set out in Column (3) of the table above]; some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie [set out in Column (4) of the table above]; many follow the multiplier given in the second column of the table in the Second Schedule of the MV Act [extracted in Column (5) of the table above]; and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation [set out in Column (6) of the table above]. For example if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in Column (2) of the Second Schedule to the MV Act. Some tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with the cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of the MV Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act, Davies Method is applicable. 42. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with the cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of the MV Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the MV Act, Davies Method is applicable. 42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), Which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 26. In the case at hand giving rise to A.O. No. 250 to 2007, the deceased Sunil Bhatia was aged about 49 years of age at the time of his accidental death. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13 for working out the total amount of compensation, which in my view, is a proper multiplier as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Therefore, in any view of the matter, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in applying the multiplier of 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is not tenable that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on higher side. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 9,25,406/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal do not call for any interference in appeal on the quantum of compensation. 27. In view of the discussion above, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company as well as the cross objection filed by the claimant-respondents have no force and the same are liable to be dismissed. 28. In A.O. No. 423 of 2007, the injured Gurdayal Singh Kukreja has filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. 28. In A.O. No. 423 of 2007, the injured Gurdayal Singh Kukreja has filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. The learned Tribunal has categorically mentioned in the impugned award dated 2.6.2007 that the injuries has not legally proved the documents, therefore, the bills of medical expenses etc. filed by the claimant-appellant were not admissible in evidence. Even in this appeal, the appellant has not filed any application to lead additional evidence to substantiate his claim. 29. Having considered the entire material on record. I find that the award of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- by the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference in appeal. The appeal for enhancement of award filed by the appeal Gurdayal Singh is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 30. In A.O. No. 424 of 2007 which has arisen out of the Claim Petition No. 214 of 2003 filed before the learned Tribunal, the appellants are aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded to them for the death of deceased Kedar Nath Bhatia. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has erroneously held that the income of the deceased Kedarnath Bhatia was Rs. 1,05,392/- per annum instead of Rs. 1,70,191/-. According to the learned counsel the taxable income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 2,60,679/- for the year 2002-2003. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the paper no. 47-C filed before the Tribunal has been ignored. 32. The learned Tribunal has duly considered the paper no. 47-C in the impugned award and has found that the document paper no. 47-C has been prepared after the death of deceased Kedar Nath Bhatia. I have perused the paper no. 47-C on record. This document is dated 12.9.2003. The accident in question has admittedly taken place on 8.8.2003. The learned Tribunal has rightly ignored this document. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the document filed by the claimants paper No. 44-C relating to the year 2001-2002 wherein the salary from firm and profit share of the deceased are shown Rs. 55,200/- and Rs. 50,192/- respectively. Thus, the annual income of the deceased has been taken to be Rs. 1,05,392/-. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the document filed by the claimants paper No. 44-C relating to the year 2001-2002 wherein the salary from firm and profit share of the deceased are shown Rs. 55,200/- and Rs. 50,192/- respectively. Thus, the annual income of the deceased has been taken to be Rs. 1,05,392/-. Out of this amount, 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and annual loss of dependency was taken to be Rs. 70,362/-. The age of the deceased Kedar Nath Bhatia was about 78 years. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 5 to workout the compensation. Besides, amount of Rs. 5,000/- each was awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants has been worked out to be Rs. 3,63,310/-. Along with the amount of compensation, interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded from the date of claim petition till payment. It may also be mentioned that the claimant-appellants have not completely parted with the business assets of the deceased. The amount of compensation awarded to the claimants-appellants is just and proper. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the quantum of compensation does not call for any interference. The appeal, therefore, has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 33. In the result, A.O. 250 of 2007, New India Assurance Company Vs. Smt. Adarsh Bhatia and others, Cross-objection No. 1711 of 2008 preferred by the claimant-respondents, A.O. No. 423 of 2007 and A.O. No. 424 of 2007 are accordingly dismissed. Costs easy. 34. The amount if any, deposited by the appellant in this Court in A.O. No. 250 of 2007 shall be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned for being paid to the claimants.