F.A.O. No. 6021 of 2010 (O&M) 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 6021 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 4th ,2011 Manjit Kaur and others .... Appellants Versus Gurdev Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (for short, "the Tribunal") in a sum of ` 2,71,000/- vide award dated 11.11.2009 . The case of the claimants is as under : On 1.12.2007, Jasbir Singh, along with Gurjit Singh, his neighbourer, had gone to Shehzada Palace, Malsian Kalan on a motorcycle. At about 10.00 PM, they were returning home. When they were at the bridge of the canal minor, a little ahead of Gujran Petrol Pump, an Indica car bearing registration No. DL- F.A.O. No. 6021 of 2010 (O&M) 2 .. 9CA-6102, driven by Gurdev Singh, respondent No.1 came from their back side in a rash and negligent manner. The Indica car had hit the motorcycle at its back, on account of which Jasbir Singh and Gurjit Singh fell on the road and suffered injuries. The motorcycle was also damaged in the accident. The injured were taken to Kalra Hospital by the driver of another vehicle. They were referred to another hospital at Amritsar. Jasbir Singh died on his way to Amritsar. Case was got registered at Police Station Zira for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against Gurdev Singh. Jasbir Singh was aged 32 years at the time of accident. He was working as a driver on a truck owned by Skattar Singh resident of village Akushah Wala, Tehsil Dharamkot, District Moga. He used to earn a sum of ` 10,000/- per month. On notice, the respondents resisted the claim petition. Respondent No.1, the driver-cum-owner of the Indica car has taken a preliminary objection to the effect that the claim petition is false, frivolous and vexatious. It was denied that the accident occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Zira. The case registered at Police Station Zira by way of FIR No. 235 dated 2.12.2007 is stated to be false. The car in question is denied to be involved in the accident. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 2, also took some preliminary objections in its written statement. It is claimed that the claimants have not come to the court with clean hands and have concealed the material F.A.O. No. 6021 of 2010 (O&M) 3 .. facts. Collusion has been pleaded between the claimants and respondent No.1 in the bringing of the petition. It is pleaded that no information was given by the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle to the answering respondent about the accident. It is further claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the car at the time of accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1.Whether Jasbir singh died in the motor vehicle accident caused by respondent No.1 while driving car No. DL 9 CA 6102 in a rash and negligent manner on 1.12.2007 at about 10 PM in the area of near Gujran Petrol Pump? OPP 2.If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so, how much from the respondents? OPP 3.Whether driver of the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?OPR 4.Relief. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 2,71,000/- to the claimants, the dependents of the deceased, vide the impugned award. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimants have F.A.O. No. 6021 of 2010 (O&M) 4 .. brought this appeal. I have heard Ms. Puja Chopra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company and have gone through the record. Before making any submission, learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out a discrepancy in the award. According to her, though respondent No.2 in the array of respondents in the heading of the award is Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the same is the name of the Company, which has filed written statement, yet the Tribunal under issue No.2 has mentioned at page No. 14 of the award, the name of the insurance company as United India Insurance Company Limited. The insurance company with which the vehicle was insured is Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the mentioning of the name of United India Insurance Company Limited at page 14 of the award is nothing but an inadvertent mistake. So notice is not required to be taken of this discrepancy. It is moreover an admitted case of the parties that the offending vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claimants of the deceased are his widow, his three minor children and widowed mother. According to her, when there were five dependents of the deceased, the dependency should not have been assessed by applying a cut of 1/3rd. According to F.A.O. No. 6021 of 2010 (O&M) 5 .. her, a cut of 1/4th should have been applied for taking out the personal expenses of the deceased on himself and the remaining 3/4th should have been taken as the dependency of the claimants. She has also challenged the award on the suitability of the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. According to her, the deceased was in the age group of 32 to 35 years and for assessing compensation in such a case, the multiplier of 16 should have been adopted as is laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has simply submitted that the compensation awarded to the claimants is just and adequate. According to him, it does not deserve to be enhanced. Both the questions about cut to be applied to the income of the deceased for assessing the dependency and the multiplier are answered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra). When the claimants are between 4 to 6, it is laid down that the deduction should be 1/4th. When the deceased had been in the age group of 31 to 35 years, as is the case before me, the multiplier laid down as suitable is 16. Taking the income of the deceased at ` 3,000/- and applying a cut of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased on himself, the annual dependency comes to ` 27,000/-, which multiplied with 16 comes to ` 4,32,000/-. A sum F.A.O. No. 6021 of 2010 (O&M) 6 .. of ` 20,000/- is awarded in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. One of the claimants herein is the widow and the claimants are, therefore, entitled to ` 20,000/- as compensation on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. In these circumstances, the appellants are found entitled to ` 4,52,000/- as compensation. The appeal is, consequently, allowed and the award is enhanced from ` 2,71,000/- to ` 4,52,000/- to be shared as per the terms of the award of the Tribunal with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. remaining the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 4th, 2011 som