FAO No.4238 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4238 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 24.09.2009 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited ...... Appellant VERSUS Randhir Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): C.M.No.19861-CII of 2009 For the reasons, mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.4238 of 2009 This appeal, preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company (herein referred as 'the appellant') is directed against the order dated 06.02.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (herein referred as 'the Tribunal'), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.7,14,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of respondents No.1 & 2-claimants (herein referred as 'the claimants') and against the appellant and respondents No.3 & 4 jointly and severally on account of the death of Sumit, aged about 19 years in a motor vehicular accident. Neither the negligence nor the liability has been challenged by the appellant-Insurance Company. The only grievance of the appellant is that since the deceased was unmarried son, therefore, the multiplier should have been applied by looking into the age of the parents. Having noticed this contention, I am not convinced by the same. The deceased, being 19 years old, was just at the threshold of the FAO No.4238 of 2009 (O&M) 2 career. He would have risen to very high status as he had long perspective career. Moreover, he was likely to be married within a year or so then his own dependency should have been decreased due to diverting of the money towards his parents, wife and children. As such, while examining the age of the parents, his matrimonial prospectus and due to his promotional prospectus in his service career on account of which his salary was to be increased, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is not on the higher side. Even otherwise, the dependency as deducted by the Tribunal to my mind may not be appropriate because with the entry into matrimonial life, the dependency of the deceased would have been decreased. Even the multiplier applied by the Tribunal appears to be inadequate because it was observed by the Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and others appellants vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another respondents 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 that in case a person dies at the age of 15 to 25 years then the multiplier of 18 is the appropriate to be applied. As regards increase in income, it was observed in Sarla Verma's Case (Supra) that in case of employees dying young, the Court should take 50% as increase in his salary while calculating the income. However, I am not sitting in appeal for enhancement. As such, the reluctance is shown in interfering in the impugned order. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 24.09.2009 mamta-II