F.A.O.No. 796 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 796 of 1987 Date of Decision : 12.11.2008 Nirmal Kumari and others ....Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. ... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is an appeal directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 17.3.1987. In a vehicular accident which took place on 1.5.1985, Naresh Kumar Sharma, a Sergeant in the Indian Air Force lost his life. He was aged 29 years and was survived by his widow, two minor children and his mother. A claim petition was preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.1583.10 but for the purpose of assessing the dependency the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.1,000/- per month and ascertained the dependency as F.A.O.No. 796 of 1987 -2- Rs.800/-. A multiplier of 16 was applied to arrive at a figure of Rs.1,53,600/- which was awarded to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the award the claimants are in appeal. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was a Sergeant in the Indian Air Force and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.1583.10 but the Tribunal has arbitrarily assessed his income at Rs.1,000/- per month. It was further contended that the future prospects have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while determining the compensation. Reliance was placed on Sarla Dixit & anr. v. Balwant Yadav & ors. 1 (2004) ACC 396 (SC), N.Leelawati (Mrs.) and others v. Amar Singh and others (2005-2) P.L.R. 656 and Chander Devi and others v. Haryana State and another (2006-3) P.L.R. 308. No one appears for the respondents. The issue regarding negligence or liability to satisfy the award has not been questioned by the respondents. In this view of the matter, the only question that is to be determined is regarding the just compensation that the appellants should be entitled to. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the award of the Tribunal needs to be modified. The deceased was concededly a Sergeant in the Indian Air Force and would have gained substantially both in terms of progress in career as also in salary. It is settled law that in such like cases where the deceased was in employment and there were chances of F.A.O.No. 796 of 1987 -3- career progression, the future prospects have to be taken into consideration by affixing the notional income linked to the progress in career. The principle to assess such notional income is that the salary which was being drawn by an incumbent should be doubled and then the two figures should be added and average of the two be obtained. In this view of the matter, considering the certificate Ex.P3 which reflects the salary of the deceased as Rs.1,583.10 ( rounded off Rs.1,585/-), this figure is accepted as salary which the deceased was drawing. Applying the aforesaid principle, the income in this manner comes out to Rs.2,378/-. 1/3rd of the said amount should be deducted for personal expenses and therefore the dependency works out to Rs.1,585/-. Considering the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is the guiding factor, the multiplier of 18 would be adequate. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs.1,585x12x18=3,42,360/-. A sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate. In this manner, the total compensation works out to be Rs.3,62,360/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. The liability to satisfy the award shall remain the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid modification in the award, the appeal stands allowed. 12.11.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss