FAO No.84 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CM No.23634-CII of 2009 and FAO No.84 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : November 12, 2009 Smt.Asloopi ... Appellant VERSUS Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Kapil Khanna, Advocate for Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.Ram Chander, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2 – Union of India None for respondents No.3 and 4. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal for enhancement of compensation, preferred by the claimant – appellant Smt.Asloopi (herein referred as the appellant) against the award dated 12.6.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Gurgaon, vide which compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- was awarded to the appellant and respondent No.5, on account of the death of their son Jarjis Mohd. in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal had awarded compensation to the appellant and respondent No.5, whereas, the claim petition qua other claimants (respondents No.6 to 10) was dismissed. FAO No.84 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] Respondents No.1 to 3 have neither challenged the negligence, nor the liability to pay the compensation. However, the appellant being the mother of the deceased has sought enhancement of compensation on the ground that her son being only 20 years old had bright prospects and was at the very threshold of his life. He was to progress a lot during his long life; his income was to be increased with the passage of time. The Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation without applying a proper multiplier and also has awarded nothing on account of transportation. Arguments heard. Record perused. There is no denying a fact that the deceased was 20 years old young unmarried son of the claimant. He was working as labourer and his parents were between 40-45 years at the time of the accident (8.11.2005) and that the deceased was likely to be married within a short period. The Apex Court in case Smt.Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR(Civil) 77, has laid down the following parameters for assessing compensation in case of bachelor deceased, while observing as under:- “15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be FAO No.84 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent and 50 percent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 percent as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” While perusing the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that the Apex Court stressed on examining the facts of each case, while assessing the compensation in case of bachelors. If the deceased leaves behind only parents, then the deduction should be made to the extent of ½, but if there were his minor brothers and sisters to whom, he was to feed and support, then his own dependency could be deducted to the extent of 1/3rd. In other words, the number of deponents is to be seen. While observing to make a FAO No.84 of 2009(O&M) [ 4 ] cut to the extent of 50%, the Court was also oblivious of the facts that the father was also there to maintain his sons and daughters as well as the wife with his own income. We cannot anticipate, what would have been the position in case of his marriage and his wife could also not be expected to be non- earning hand. Thus, without anticipating any such situation, which might decrease the dependency of the claimants, the cut of ½ need be applied i.e. Rs.1500/- per month. In this manner, the dependency comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. Again with the passage of time and on account of the price-rise, his income would have also been increased. As such, I, do not only hesitate, but rather reluctant to reduce his contribution towards the parents less than Rs.2000/- per month during their period of survival. Thus, while keeping in view the age of the parents and guide-lines as set out in IInd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appropriate multiplier of '15' could be applied in this case. Thus, while calculating the compensation on the aforesaid parameters, the total loss comes to Rs.2000 x 12 x 15 = Rs.3,60,000/-. The amount of Rs.9000/- given on account of funeral expenses would also remain undisturbed. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.3,69,000/-. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact. November 12, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE