FAO NO. 354 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 354 of 2011 Date of order:14.12.2011 Manjit Kaur and another ..... Appellants Versus Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and others .... Respondents -- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Saloni Sharma, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent no.3. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded to them by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ropar(for short 'the Tribunal'), vide which compensation in a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- has been awarded to the claimants on the death of Paramjit Kaur in a road side accident that took place on 15.07.2009. The claim petition brought under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') by the parents of the deceased is based on the following averments.- FAO NO. 354 of 2011 2 On 15.07.2009 at about 2.30 PM, Paramjit Kaur was hit by a truck/canter bearing registration no. PB-12-B/5421 driven by respondent no.2 in the area of Rangian Mor, Sugar Mill Road, Morinda, District Ropar. She was 17 years of age at the time of the accident and was studying in 10+1 in Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Morinda. She was also helping her parents in the household chores and she was doing stitching work and was earning about Rs.4000/- per month. She was claimed to be a brilliant student, having a very bright future. It is also claimed that a sum of more than Rs.50,000/- was spent on transportation of the dead body of Paramjit Kaur and her last rites. They have consequently claimed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. The claim petition has been opposed by the respondents, who have denied the personal particulars of the deceased as pleaded by the claimants. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal on 22.09.2009:- “1- Whether Paramjit Kaur daughter of Balwant Singh died due to the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 15.07.2009 at about 2.30 PM in the area of Rangian Mor, Sugar Mill Road, Morinda, District Ropar, due to the rash and negligent driving of truck (canter) No.PB12-B/5421 by its driver i.e. respondent no.2?OPP 2- Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of Paramjit Kaur daughter of Balwant Singh deceased and they are entitled to receive the compensation on account of the death of Paramjit Kaur daughter of Balwant Singh? If so, to what extent and from whom?OPP 3- Whether the driver of truck (canter) No.PB-12B/5421 i.e. Respondent no.2 was not holding a valid and FAO NO. 354 of 2011 3 effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident ?OPR3 4- Whether the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck (canter) No.PB-12B/5421 was not holding a valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of alleged accident ?OPR3 5- Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form ?OPR 6- Relief.” Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award. Feeling dis-satisfied with the awarded amount, the claimants have brought this appeal for enhancement of compensation. I have heard Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Saloni Sharma, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Mr. Ravinder Arora, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the award on two aspects, the first is the income assessed by the Tribunal of the deceased and the second is the multiplier. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2000/- per month only and has adopted the multiplier of 10. According to him, the multiplier to be applied in this case should have been of 13. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted that the deceased had been 17 years old girl, who was a student and, therefore, her income could not be taken to be above Rs.2000/- per month. According to FAO NO. 354 of 2011 4 him, the multiplier has been taken on a lower side which may be increased. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in taking the dependency of the claimants, the parents of the deceased at 2/3rd of the income of the deceased. According to him, it should be ½ of the income of the deceased. The deceased had been 17 years old daughter of the claimants. Even if she was a student, her help in domestic chores to her parents could not be assessed at an amount of Rs.2000/- per month. The accident having taken place on 15.07.2009, the income of the deceased could not be taken below Rs.3000/- per month. Since the death is of an unmarried person, the dependency of the claimants, being parents, has to be taken as 1/2 of this amount. Taking ½ of the same and multiplying it with 12, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.18,000/-. The multiplier in this case would be governed by the age of the claimants because their age is higher than the age of the deceased. They are claimed to be 48-49 years old. As per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier applicable in this case would be of 13. So multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with 13, the amount of the dependency of the claimants on the death of Paramjit Kaur comes to Rs.2,34,000. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.5000/- for loss of estate and another sum of Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. Therefore, the claimants are found to be entitled to Rs.2,44,000/- as compensation in this case. FAO NO. 354 of 2011 5 The appeal is consequently allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,62,000/- to Rs.2,44,000/-, which shall be payable with interest as allowed by the Tribunal by way of the impugned award to the appellants. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 14 .12.2011 JUDGE dinesh