JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J.
1. This is an appeal arising out of the judgment and award dated 14.8.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 4,42,500/- by way of compensation to the heirs of deceased Jitendra Kumar Singh.
2. A claim case was filed with the allegations that on 27.12.2000 at about 7 p.m. Jitendra Kumar Singh was going by a Maruti Van to Meerut. When he reached near village Rethani, a defective truck was standing by the side of the road and when the deceased tried to drive further by the side of the truck, Truck No. UP23/ 6696 came from opposite side, which was being driven rashly and negligently, and dashed Maruti Van being driven by Jitendra Kumar Singh, as a result of which he sustained injuries and ultimately died due to this accident.
3. The claimants are wife, son and parents of the deceased. Deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of the said accident. He was a Hawaldar Clerk in the Indian Army and was maintaining his family out of Dairy farming and other agricultural work.
4. The opposite party filed written statement and admitted the factum of accident, but denied the manner in which the accident took place. It has further been pleaded that the deceased himself has contributed to the negligence and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to claim compensation.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed as many as four issues in the case and after recording evidence and appraisal thereof, came to the conclusion that the driver of Truck No. UP23/6696 was rash and negligent and due to his fault the accident in question took place.
6. On quantum of compensation the learned Tribunal held that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per month and out of it, Rs. 1,000/- was to be spent by him on his own. Thus, the dependency comes to Rs. 2,000/- per month and if it is multiplied by 12, the yearly income comes to Rs. 24,000/- and then assessed the amount of compensation by adopting multiplier of 17 at Rs. 4,08,000/-. Besides it, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded as funeral expenses and other amounts have been awarded as defraying charges for medical treatment. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,42,500/- was directed to be paid by way of compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeal has been filed.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record.
8. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that deceased was not having a valid driving licence as he himself had been driving the vehicle in question after hiring it from somebody else.
9. We have considered this argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant and find that the burden was on the appellant to show that deceased was not having a valid driving licence at the relevant time. However, evidence on record shows that after the death a valid driving licence of the deceased was recovered form his pocket. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question.
10. It has next been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased himself was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and he himself has contributed to the negligence.
11. On this point the learned Tribunal considered the evidence of RW. 2, Brijendra Singh @ Birjan Singh, who has stated on oath that he was standing near the scene of occurrence and it was the driver of Truck No. UP23/6696, which came all of a sudden, driving the vehicle in question rashly and negligently and dashed the vehicle being driven by the deceased, as a result of which Maruti Van in question went straight and struck the standing vehicles. RW. 2, Brijendra Singh @ Birjan Singh is an independent witness and he is not related to the deceased, therefore, his statement cannot be discarded.
12. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, it is thus clear that the driver of Truck No. UP23/6696 was rash and negligent and due to his fault the accident in question took place.
13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, we find that the learned Tribunal has worked out the dependency of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Age of the deceased at the time of his death was 32 years and the learned Tribunal has applied rightly the multiplier of 17. The amount thus, conies to Rs. 4,08,500/-. Besides it, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded as funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been credited towards medical expenses. Learned Tribunal has awarded the above amount considering the fact that after the accident the deceased remained in the hospital and spent a huge amount towards his medical expenses. However, the schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act shows that the said amount should not exceed Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, under this head the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to modified.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 14.8.2002 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 4,42,500/-, the claimant-respondents will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,32,500/- only.
15. The amount, which is in deposit before this Court as well as before the Tribunal, shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimant-respondents. The balance amount, if any, shall be deposited by the appellant within four weeks from today. On deposit so being made, the claimant-respondents shall be allowed to withdraw the same also without furnishing any security.