FAO No. 596 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 596 of 2009 Date of decision 23.4.2009. Madhusmita Mishra Pant and others ...... Appellants. versus Hukam Chand & Others ...... Respondents. Present : Mr. Rupinder S.Khosla, Advocate for the appellants. L.N.MITTAL,J.(Oral) This is appeal by claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra (in short – Claims Tribunal) vide impugned Award dated 3.9.2008. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. The deceased was employed as Lecturer in Music and Dance Department in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, as per salary certificate mark P-8. No official from the University has been examined by the claimants regarding income or promotional avenue, if any, for the deceased. Nevertheless, the unproved salary certificate has been taken into FAO No. 596 of 2009 2 consideration by the Tribunal in toto. The salary certificate gave the emoluments of the deceased to be Rs.20,942/- per month including Rs.280/- per month as medical allowance, which was to be substracted to the salary. Nevertheless, the Tribunal took into consideration the salary of the deceased as Rs.21,000/- per month. The claimants are widow and two minor children ( a son and a daughter) of the deceased. The dependency has been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.14,000/- per month i.e. 2/3rd of the income of the deceased. Even if unit system is applied, taking two units for adult and one unit for the minor, dependency would come to 2/3rd of the income of the deceased. Multiplier of 12 has been applied when the age of the deceased was 47 years as per claimants' own version. The compensation so calculated by the Tribunal is not inadequate in any manner. Even income tax liability has not been deducted by the Tribunal while taking into consideration the income of the deceased and dependency of the appellants, although the income tax liability should have been deducted from the salary. There is no scope for further enhancement. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. ( L.N.MITTAL ) JUDGE April 23, 2009 sv