FAO No. 3343 of 1999 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 3343 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.4.2010 Smt. Premo and others ... Appellants vs Pahal Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the Insurance company. Rajesh Bindal J. The dependents of deceased Ram Singh are in appeal before this court against the award dated 18.8.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). Briefly the facts as stated in the award of the learned Tribunal are that on 9.1.1998 at about 8.00 p.m., Sher Singh and Ram Singh, were going to their village Baltana on Scooter No. HR-03/6817. The scooter was driven by Sher Singh and Ram Singh was its pillion rider. When they reached on the road of Sectors 16-17, Panchkula, a truck bearing registration no. HR-45/2521, driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the side of BEL factory and hit the scooter by coming on the wrong side. In the said accident both Sher Singh and Ram Singh received injuries and died. Case against the driver was registered. As the claimants were fully dependent on the deceased, they filed claim petition, which was allowed. Still dissatisfied with the award of the learned Tribunal, the claimants filed appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that income of the deceased Ram Singh, who was 40 years of age at the time of death, assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. As per deposition of PW2 Smt. Premo, the widow of deceased Ram Singh, the deceased was earning about Rs. 8,000/- per month by running a general merchant shop at Manimajra. The submission was that the compensation be enhanced after considering his income at Rs. 8,000/- per month. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company submitted that much more than what the claimants deserved, has been awarded by the learned Tribunal after applying the multiplier of 16 which, in fact, FAO No. 3343 of 1999 -2- deserves to be reduced considering the age of the deceased. As regards the income, it was submitted that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- which deserves reduction. There is only bald statement of the widow that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. Admittedly, deceased Ram Singh was 40 years of age at the time of death. There is no documentary evidence on record, except the oral statement of the widow that deceased Ram Singh was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. According to her statement, the deceased was giving Rs. 4,000/- per month to her for house hold expenses. This is the only oral statement in support of the income of the deceased. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed Rs. 4,000/- monthly income of the deceased and deducted 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased considering the dependency. The learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 16 which is on higher side as per judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in determining the amount of compensation. The appeal filed by the claimants is accordingly dismissed. 29.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge