F.A.O. No. 4183 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4183 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 17-12-2009 Smt. Kanta Devi and others .........Appellant Vs Ramphal and another .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri V.S.Punia, Advocate, for the appellants Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the insurance company HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 23.1.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind whereby he awarded an amount of Rs.3,37,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. The facts are that Vijay Kumar since deceased was going to Narwana side from Jind by riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-05J-4967 and was on his correct side of the road. When he reached on Jind-Narwana road, in the area of Uchana Mandi in front of M/s Jangra Engineering Workshop (owned by Jaggu Mistry son of Chattar Singh, Jangra, resident of village Ghoghariyan), in the meantime, a truck bearing registration No. HR-38D-2944 being driven by Ramphal in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and struck against the motorcycle of Vijay Kumar as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries on various parts of his body. In his written statement, Ramphal F.A.O. No. 4183 of 2009(O&M) 2 driver-cum-owner of the truck inter alia pleaded that the accident did not take place on the alleged date, time and place and that a false case has been registered against him. The respondent insurance company in its written statement inter alia pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the alleged accident and it was being plied in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether Vijay Kumar son of Om Parkash died in road side accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HR-38D-2944 by respondent no.1 as alleged?OPP 2. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, at the relevant time, as alleged?OPR-2 3. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy, alleged?OPR-2 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom?OPP 5. Relief: I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The age of the deceased was 38 years at the time of his death in this accident, as per Ex.P-1, the Post Mortem Report. As alleged by the claimants, the deceased was a skilled electrician and he used to do the work of electrician independently in the Industrial Area of Panipat and his monthly income was not less than Rs.20,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has observed that the deceased was not Diploma Holder in Electrician Trade and that being so, he was taken to be a casual labourer. F.A.O. No. 4183 of 2009(O&M) 3 Thus his monthly income was assessed at Rs.3,000/-. The learned Tribunal has applied 11 as a multiplier. In re: Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 2009(3) Recent Civil Reports (Civil) 77 the deceased was 38 years of age and he had died in motor accident. 15 was applied as multiplier by the Supreme Court. If the matter is viewed in the light of the observations rendered in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others case (supra), 15 should have been applied as multiplier. Thus in view of the above referred case, it is held that the appellants are entitled to claim an amount of Rs.55,000/- more as compensation over and above the awarded amount. Accordingly, the appellants are awarded an enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.55,000/- which shall be deposited within 45 days by the respondent insurance company, failing which this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization. With this modification in the impugned award, this appeal stands disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE December 17, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No