Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 3.9.2004, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/II Fast Track Court, Nainital, whereby Rs. 2,30,000 has been awarded as amount of compensation to the claimants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that claimants' son, Ajay Singh Bisht, aged 25 years used to earn Rs. 4,500 per month by doing dairy business. He was an unmarried man. On 20.12.2000, he was going on a motor cycle registration No. UP 02-D 2933, of his friend's father--Anand Ballabh Pande. It is alleged in the claim petition that the motor cycle was being driven by Ajay Singh Bisht and Vikrant Pande was a pillion rider. The motor cycle on its way from Ramnagar to Nainital, when reached near village Talli Mangoli, due to the technical failure fell into a deep gorge in which Vikrant Pande died on the spot and Ajay Singh Bisht also got seriously injured and he was taken to Soban Singh Jeena Base Hospital, Haldwani, for medical treatment. From said hospital, he was referred to Bareilly and therefrom to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. However, he succumbed to the injuries in Delhi on 29.12.2000. The claimants are parents of the deceased, Ajay Singh Bisht. They alleged that they were dependent on their son and claimed Rs. 8,00,000 as the amount of compensation from Anand Ballabh Pande, owner of the motor cycle and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., with whom the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. The claim petition was contested by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and separate written statement was filed by the owner of the motor cycle. In the written statement of the owner of the vehicle, almost all the facts of claim petition have been admitted and it is pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., in its written statement, has pleaded that it was not informed of the accident, as required under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also alleged that claimants are in collusion with the owner of motor cycle. It is also pleaded that the conditions of the policy were violated and the vehicle was being driven by an unauthorised person. The learned Claims Tribunal, framed the necessary issues and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,30,000 as amount of compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
4. From the oral evidence of Bachi Singh Bisht, PW 1, read with post-mortem report (paper No. 5 C/2), filed before the Tribunal, it is proved that on 20.12.2000, when Ajay Singh Bisht was going with his friend Vikrant Pande in motor cycle registration No. UP 02-D 2933, he met with an accident, as the motor cycle fell down in a deep gorge, near village, Talli Mangoli in which Vikrant Pande died on the spot while Ajay Singh Bisht, succumbed to the injuries, received in the accident on 29.12.2000 at Delhi, where the post-mortem of his body was conducted. It is also adduced in evidence that Ajay Singh Bisht (deceased) used to do dairy business. The learned Tribunal has assessed the financial loss on account of dependency to the claimants at Rs. 20,000 per annum. Considering the age of the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, Ajay Singh Bisht, the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 10 and assessed the financial loss at Rs. 2,00,000. The Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 25,000 to meet the expenses, incurred in medical treatment of the deceased and Rs. 3,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,000 towards other expenses. As such, in all Rs. 2,30,000 has been awarded as amount of compensation. After examination of evidence on record, we are in agreement with the findings arrived at, by the Claims Tribunal.
5. Learned Counsel for appellant argued that motor cycle was being driven by an unauthorised person and without driving licence. As such, the appellant is not liable to make any payment. But the statement of Bachi Singh Bisht, PW 1, shows that in his cross-examination, he has clearly stated that his son Ajay Singh Bisht (deceased) was driving the motor cycle. In the examination-in-chief of the same witness, it has been stated that his son possessed a valid driving licence. Paper No. 5 C/5 is copy of the driving licence which was filed before the Tribunal which corroborates that Ajay Singh Bisht had valid driving licence No. 47369 of 1998, which was valid for the period 4.6.1998 till 3.6.2018. There is no contrary evidence to it, adduced on behalf of the respondents. As such, we do not see any force in the contention of learned Counsel for appellant. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned Tribunal as to the age assessed, dependency of claimants on the deceased and the multiplier applied (in view of the age of the parents-claimants). Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the impugned award, which requires interference by this Court.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.