FAO No. 1185 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1185 of 1989 Decided on : 09-12-2008 Manjit Kaur and another ....Appellants VERSUS Bhupinder Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance Company. MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, dated 16.8.1989. The claimants who have preferred the claim petition on account of the death of Jagdish Singh in a vehicular accident which took place on 29.11.88 were granted a compensation of Rs.3,32,800/-. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation had taken the salary of the deceased as Rs.1460/- per month which was established by way of cogent evidence on record. He was working as Tracer. A cut of 1/3rd was applied on account of personal expenses. Therefore, the dependency was assessed as Rs.970/- per month ie. 970 x 12 = 11,640/- per annum. An amount of Rs.5,000/- was added to this annual dependency . Multiplier of 20 was applied to arrive at compensation of Rs.3,32,800/- which was directed to be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per FAO No. 1185 of 1989 2 annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. Dis-satisfied with the award, the appellants are in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the amount is inadequate as the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that the deceased was engaged in diary business as well and was getting some earning from it. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the award, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and adequate. Additional amount of Rs.5,000/- has been erroneously added in the annual dependency of the deceased as this was agricultural income as the dependents would have got it even after the death of the deceased. However, future prospects have not been taken into consideration. It is a settled principle of law that where a person is regularly employed then his future prospects have to be taken into consideration. The principle to assess the future prospects is to double the salary and then add salary to this and then to take average of the two figures. In this manner, income of the deceased comes to Rs.2190/- per month (2920 + 1460 = 4380/2 =2190). A cut of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses would be just and appropriate. In this manner, dependency comes to Rs.1460/- per month i.e. Rs.17,520/- per annum (1460 x 12) and a multiplier of 18 would be just and appropriate in the given set of circumstances which is in accordance with the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act which is the guiding factor. Therefore, the compensation comes to Rs. 3,15,360/- which is almost similar to the amount which has already been awarded to the appellants. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the FAO No. 1185 of 1989 3 impugned award does not warrant any interference. However, nothing has been awarded on account of funeral expenses. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the said head. Disposed of. December 9 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge