FAO No.4927 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4927 of 2010 (O&M) (in MACT No.112 of 2008) Date of decision: 23.12.2011 Smt.Saroj Devi ....Appellant Versus Surender Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: None for the appellant. Mr.Ravinder Arora and Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocates for respondent-Insurance Company ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) CM Nos.21243-44-CII of 2010 Despite notice, reply has not been filed by the respondents. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, delay of 16 days in refiling and 11 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Applications stand disposed of. FAO No.4927 of 2010 By filing the present appeal, the claimant/ appellant has sought enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, vide award dated 30.10.2009, on account of death of Vikas, son of the appellant, in a motor vehicular accident on 26.5.2007. The brief facts of the present case are that on 26.5.2007, Vikas, FAO No.4927 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Raje Ram, Satbir and some other persons were going from Adampur Dhadi towards Narnaul in a Maxi Cab bearing registration No.HR-66 2210, being driven by Bir Singh driver. When they were close to Akoda Police Post, a Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR99 AE (temporary) 7079, coming from Mahendergarh side, hit the said Maxi Cab, as a result of which, Vikas, Satbir, Raje Ram, Seema, Shashi, Rajender died, whereas Reena and Saroj suffered injuries. They were rushed to Community Health Centre, Mahendergarh. The respective claimants filed separate claim petitions were filed. The learned Tribunal decided all the claim petitions vide a common award dated 30.10.2009. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the claimant filed the present appeal. The grounds of enhancement pleaded in the appeal are that the deceased was 14 years of age and was a student of 10th Class. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of `1,68,000/- towards loss of dependency and `5000/- towards transportation and last rite, which is inadequate. Whereas, no amount has been awarded towards loss of future income; and love and affection. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the amount of compensation. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the case file as well as the grounds of appeal. From the perusal of the record, it emerges that there is no record that the deceased was a student of 10th Class. The claimant did not produce any school certificate or other cogent evidence in this regard. She FAO No.4927 of 2010 (O&M) 3 has also miserably failed to prove the age of the deceased as 14 years, which was mentioned in the claim petition. In spite of that the learned Tribunal has assessed his income `1000/- per month i.e. `12000/- per annum. The mother being 40 years of age, in view of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 , the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 14. As such, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of `1,68,000/- as compensation, on account of loss of dependency, which is adequate. The untimely death of Vikas was a great shock to his mother. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of `5000/- towards transportation of dead body and last rites, which is inadequate. Moreover, from perusal of the award, it is revealed that no amount has been awarded towards love and affection. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met, if the amount of `30,000/- is enhanced towards these heads. Ordered accordingly. Accordingly, the enhanced amount i.e. `30,000/- shall be paid to the appellant, in the manner indicated in the impugned award, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realisation. In view of above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above. 23.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE