FAO No. 6513 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6513 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.7.2011 Satya Devi and Others Appellants v Phool Singh and Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Maninder Kaur,Advocate for the appellants Ms.Vandana Malhotra,Advocate for the respondents ... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the Award dated 17.4.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short the Tribunal) praying that the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. The brief facts are that on 7.5.2008, Karam Singh, lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, as a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1,driver of tractor bearing registration No. HR-03-G-7391. The deceased was serving in Haryana Warehousing Corporation,Saha as godown attendant-cum-watchman. As per the salary certificate Ex.P2, deceased was getting salary of Rs.8432/- p.m. As per matriculation certificate Ex.P6,at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 47-1/2 years. The Ld. Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 7,47,016/- after applying the multiplier of 8 to the claimants i.e. wife, sons and widowed mother of the deceased in addition to an amount of Rs. 5000/- to the widow, being spouse of the deceased and Rs. 2500/- for loss of estate. The Tribunal further held respondents No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the FAO No. 6513 of 2010 2 amount of compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 8 and that in view of the guidelines framed in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the multiplier of 13 should have been applied keeping in view the age of the deceased. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded to the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the facts narrated above and the law laid down in Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra), this court is of the opinion that in the instant case, the multiplier of 13 should have been applied instead of multiplier of 8. Accordingly the multiplier of 8 is enhanced to 13. The Executing Court is to make payment after calculating the amount of compensation as per the enhanced multiplier. With this modification in the Award, the appeal stands disposed of. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 25.7.2011 MS