Ramalingam Sudhakar, J.The National Insurance Company Limited is on appeal challenging the award dated 19-5-2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu.

2. It is a case of fatal accident. On 23-9-2002, when the deceased Rakesh along with his daughter Nadia were on their way back to home on Scooter No. JK02H 6018 when they reached at Satwari Chowk a Truck No. JKS 5355 driven by respondent No. 3 in rash and negligent manner hit the two wheeler as a result of which deceased-Rakesh sustained fatal injuries. At the time of accident deceased was 36 years old as per the claimants statement and 32 years as per the oral evidence. The deceased was working as Safai Karamchari (Sweeper) at Station HQ Kalu Chak.

3. Widow of the deceased-Rakesh aged 32 years and three minor children are the claimants. They claimed as a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. In support of the claim widow-Nissara and one Sheikh Mohd Kalyan appeared as witnesses. One Ram Lal was examined for proving the income of the deceased. The income of the deceased was claimed at Rs.4984/- per month and after deduction deceased was getting Rs.3969/- per month. Salary certificate was marked and found to be correct. There was another salary certificate filed on 8-6-2005 issued by the Administrative Commandant Kalu Chak showing the salary of the deceased as Rs.6,575/- per month for the month of May, 2005. The Tribunal took this amount on the plea that future prospects should be considered from this amount (Rs.6575/-) One third was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased leaving behind a sum of Rs.4382/- as monthly loss of the dependency, i.e. Rs.52,584/- per annum. Tribunal adopted the multiplier as per 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and applied multiplier of 16, however, on account of uncertainties of life multiplier was reduced to 13 and compensation was determined under various heads, details of which are as under:-

1

For loss of dependency

Rs. 6,83,592/-

2

For consortium to widow and loss of estate.

Rs. 10,000/-

3

For funeral expenses

Rs. 3000/-

Total

Rs. 6,96,592/-

4. On the plea of no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, Tribunal rejected the evidence of Sheikh Mohd Kalyan. It relied upon the details in the FIR No.313 of 2002, which noted after investigation that offending vehicle (Truck) was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and consequently caused the accident.

5. In the absence of other reliable evidence on record except that of the FIR coupled with the statements of witnesses aforesaid, who stated about the negligence of the offending vehicle, Tribunal was justified in holding that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle (Truck) insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. No evidence was tendered and no material was produce to disprove the version of the claimants. Hence plea of no negligence fails.

6. Insofar as compensation is concerned, there are two versions relating to the income of the deceased, but even if the lesser amount is taken and if future prospects are added and the correct multiplier is applied as per Sarla Verma and Ors v. Delhi Corporation and anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) re-multiplier of 13 as held by the Tribunal, the quantum will be just. Meager amount has been granted for loss of consortium to widow and loss of estate. The award is not excessive as alleged.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground made out for interference on the quantum of compensation or on the plea of no negligence.

8. Appeal is dismissed along with MP.