IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH F. A. O. No. 58 of 2000 Date of Decision: December 17 , 2008 Smt. Pushpa Rani and others ...........Appellants Versus Subhash Chander etc. ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate for the New India Assurance Company Ltd. * * * Sabina, J. This is an appeal against the award dated 3.11.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants, seeking compensation on account of death of Ram Nath in the motor vehicle accident, was allowed and a sum of Rs. 1,63,000/- was awarded to the claimants towards compensation. Claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 15.7.1997 Ram Nath and Kapil Kumar were going from Phillaur to Ludhiana on Scooter No. PB-10- W-8140. The scooter was driven by Ram Nath with due care and caution. At about 12.30 P.M., a Zen Maruti Car bearing registration No. JK-08- 2033 driven by Subhash Chander (respondent No.1), in rash and negligent manner, came and struck against the scooter driven by Ram Nath from behind. As a result of this, Ram Nath suffered injuries and was removed F. A. O. No. 58 of 2000 -2- to R.S.Grewal Hospital, New Shakti Nagar, Ludhiana in the offending car. Ram Nath was then shifted to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, as his condition was serious, where, he succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the claim petition was filed. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents and they filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “ 1. Whether Ram Nath, deceased die din Motor Vehicle Accident on 15.7.1997 at about 12.30 P.M. at G.T. Road, Opposite Village Mand Phagowal, with Zen Maruti bearing No. JK-08-2033 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 ?OPP 2. Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Nath? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation if so to what amount and from whom?OPP 5. Relief” Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Vide the impugned award, the claim petition was allowed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, claimants proved on record income tax returns filed by Ram Nath. As per the said income tax returns, the earning F. A. O. No. 58 of 2000 -3- from profits and gains from business were shown as Rs. 24,150/- in Exhibit PW3/1, which was income tax return for the year 1995-96, and in Exhibit PW3/2, the income from business/profits were shown as Rs. 15,600/- for the year 1996-97. On the basis of the same, the learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/- per annum. Hence, the income per month was calculated at Rs. 15,00/-. After deducting 1/3rd out of the same for the maintenance and personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency of the claimant was worked out to Rs.1000/- per month. In the income tax return, the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as April 15,1950. Hence, the age of the deceased was rightly taken as 47 years at the time of his death, due to accident which had taken place on 15.7.1997, and the multiplier of `13' applied by the learned Tribunal is appropriate. In view of the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal worked out the compensation of Rs. 1,56,000/-. Rs. 5000/- were further allowed towards loss of consortium and Rs.2000/- were allowed towards funeral expenses. The compensation, thus, worked out by the learned Tribunal is just and fair and calls for no interference, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Sabina ) Judge December 17, 2008 arya