IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 3754 of 2002 Date of Decision : April 04 , 2008 Jaswant Kaur and anothers ....Appellants Versus Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation, Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondents No. 3 and 4. T.P.S. MANN, J. The claimants have filed the present appeal against the award dated 21.12.2001 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby they were awarded a sum or Rs. 1,05,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. They have prayed in the appeal for enhancing the amount of compensation. The accident in question had taken place on 1.10.1999 at about 7.15/7.30 P.M. when Ranjit Singh, since deceased, was driving scooter bearing No. PB-11-L-7690 and proceeding from village Rarora Kalan to village Chhanno on Bhawanigarh Road. At that time, F.A.O. No. 3754 of 2002 -2- Gurmeet Singh, since deceased, was sitting on the pillion. When they reached near Gajju Majra Bus Stand, a bus bearing No. AF-4 of P.R.T.C. Depot, Chandigarh came from behind and hit the scooter although the scooter was being driven by Ranjit Singh on his left hand side. Due to the accident, the scooter fell down and so also its riders. They received serious injuries and succumbed to them at the spot. It was claimed that the bus was being driven by Jagdev Singh-respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing any horn or observing the traffic rules, inspite of the fact that he was not a Driver and it was Gurjit Singh-respondent No. 4, who was the Driver at the relevant time but was sitting in the bus and had allowed Jagdev Singh to drive the bus. Both Jagdev Singh and Gurjit Singh were found in drunken condition. The appellants, who are parents of Gurmeet Singh, since deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein they prayed for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest. It was stated by them that the deceased was 25 years of age and was hale and hearty, besides possessing good health. He was running the shop of a Photographer and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. He was unmarried. The claimants were dependent upon him. Hence, they were entitled for the grant of compensation. The respondent-Corporation opposed the claim petition by asserting that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent F.A.O. No. 3754 of 2002 -3- driving of the scooter by the scooterists and not due to the negligence of the bus Driver. They denied that the claimants were dependent upon the deceased. Jagdev Singh and Gurjit Singh respondents No. 3 and 4 filed their written statement as well and denied the causing of the accident. From the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- “1. Whether Ranjit Singh and Gurmeet Singh died in a motor vehicular accident caused by Jagdev Singh respondent No.3 by driving Bus No. AF-4 of P.R.T.C. Depot, Chandigarh rashly and negligently on 1.10.1999 in the jurisdiction of P.S. Samana? OPA. 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom ? OPA. 3. Relief.” The claimants examined Randhir Singh as AW1, Bhupin- der Singh as AW2, Sukhdev Singh as AW3 and Chhinder Singh as F.A.O. No. 3754 of 2002 -4- AW4 in support of their claim petition. They also proved documents Ex. A1 to A6. However, the respondents did not produce any witness. After going through the evidence, learned Tribunal held that the accident in which Ranjit Singh and Gurmeet Singh lost their lives, was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to respondent-Corporation. The learned Tribunal then held that the deceased was an unmarried person and earning Rs. 2,000/- per month as an ordinary worker. Out of the same, he would be spending about Rs. 800/- on himself and giving the remaining amount of Rs. 1,200/-, to his parents. This could have continued for about three years when the deceased would have got married and in such a situa- tion, the dependency on the claimants would have got reduced to Rs. 500/- per month. In respect of the dependency of Rs. 500/- per month, learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10 and thus, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,03,200/-, which was rounded to Rs. 1,05,000/- to the claimants besides holding them entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Out of the awarded amount, Rs. 60,000/- was to be de- posited in the name of Jaswinder Kaur-appellant, while Rs.45,000/- in the name of Sukhdev Singh-appellant in some nationalised bank and they were held entitled to withdraw monthly interest, which interest was to be paid to them in equal shares. All the respondents were held liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severely. F.A.O. No. 3754 of 2002 -5- I have perused the record of the case. Neither the respondent-Corporation nor any of the private respondents has filed any appeal so as to assail the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1. As such, there is no other option but to hold that Gurmeet Singh, since deceased, died on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus, which was driven by Jag- dev Singh-Respondent No. 3 and at that time, Gurjit Singh-respondent No.4, who was supposed to be the Driver of the bus was sitting in the same. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it may be no- ticed that the appellants’ son Gurmeet Singh was aged 25 years at the time of accident. Sukhdev Singh- appellant was aged 58 years while Jaswant Kaur-appellant 52 years of age. Although, it has come in the statement of Chhinder Singh AW4 that Gurmeet Singh was a Photogra- pher and a movie-maker and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, yet the claimants could not prove any training/qualification received by Gurmeet Singh regarding photography or movie making. They also did not produce any record regarding the income of the deceased. In this situation, the learned Tribunal was justified in treating Gurmeet Singh as an ordinary worker and earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. Out of the monthly income of Rs. 2,000/- the deceased, being unmarried would not have spent more than 1/3rd on himself and, thus, handed over Rs. 1,333/- to his parents. This could have continued F.A.O. No. 3754 of 2002 -6- for about three years before he was to get married. Once married, the deceased could still give at least half of his income to his parents while spending the other half on himself and his wife. Considering the age of the deceased as well as of his parents, the Court is of the view that a multiplier of 12 was best suited to be applied to the facts of the case in relation to the dependency of the appellants after the marriage of their son. In view of the above, it is held that the appellants are enti- tled to the grant of compensation of Rs. 47,988/-, i.e. for a period of three years from the date of death of their son Gurmeet Singh and by taking the dependency to be Rs. 1,333/- per month. After the expiry of period of three years, the dependency would get reduced to Rs. 1,000/- per month but the same would remain effective for a period of 12 years, thus entitling the appellants to receive a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- as com- pensation. In all, the compensation amount stands enhanced from Rs. 1,05,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 1,91,988/-. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment of the com- pensation. Ordered accordingly. No costs. ( T.P.S. MANN ) April 04, 2008 JUDGE satish F.A.O. No. 3754 of 2002 -7-