FAO No. 3359 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … FAO No. 3359 of 2009 Date of decision: August 4,2009 New India Assurance Company Ltd. ..Appellant. Versus Amarjit Kaur and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocates for the appellant. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. The insurer has filed this appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal dated 28.2.2009 whereby claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 claiming compensation on account of death of Dilbagh Singh in a major vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. PB-10-BU-2525 was allowed, holding that the appellant along with respondent nos.5 and 6 is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 19,27,000/- as compensation along with interest to the claimants. The appellant Insurance Company has not raised any ground to challenge the impugned award as enumerated under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 and in fact the only point raised before this court is that compensation awarded to the claimant/respondents is excessive and against the well settled principles of law. However, learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record the order dated 26.2.2009 passed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 whereby the appellant-Insurance Company was allowed to contest the present claim by taking all the pleas which were available to respondent Nos.5 and 6(i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle). In support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has FAO No. 3359 of 2009 2 vehemently argued that there is no evidence on record to determine the monthly income of the deceased Dilbagh Singh at Rs. 15000/- as determined by the Tribunal as from the salary certificate PW4/B the gross salary of the deceased had come to Rs. 13139/- . Learned counsel has also challenged the application of multiplier of sixteen in the present case as according to him keeping in view the age of the deceased which was 37 years at the time of accident, at the maximum a multiplier of 12 should have been applied in this case. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the impugned award be modified as prayed above. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the appeal. It is well settled that amount of compensation payable to the claimants cannot be calculated with arithmetical precision. In Smt. Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down that in a case where the age of the deceased was 40, a multiplier of 15 should be applied. In this judgment, it was further held that where number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th. Thus applying the aforesaid principles of law as envisaged in the aforesaid judgment, in the present case a cut of more than 1/4th could not be applied as the deceased was having four dependents and therefore even if we take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 13139/-, the monthly dependency of the deceased will come to Rs. 9855/- whereas the tribunal has taken the monthly dependency of the deceased at Rs. 10000/- and thus, there is practically no difference. In the present case, multiplier of 16 has been applied, whereas as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the multiplier of 15 was to be applied. Hence, I find that there is no much difference and no fault can be found with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on the question of quantum of FAO No. 3359 of 2009 3 compensation. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the award of the Tribunal. Dismissed. August 4, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE