FAO No. 2140 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2140 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.3.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant v. Kavita Devi and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. V. K. Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dewan S. Adlakha, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 3.4.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby respondents No. 1 to 4-claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 3,14,000/- on account of the death of Shish Pal in a motor vehicular accident. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 31.10.2005, Jaswinder Singh was driving motor cycle No. HR-02L-3163. Shish Pal (deceased) was the pillion rider. When they reached near village Basant Pura, their motor cycle was hit by some unknown vehicle. As a result of the accident, Jaswinder Singh and Shish Pal received multiple injuries and ultimately died. Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed claim petition on account of the death of Shish Pal. Vide impugned award, the claim petition was accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not press the argument regarding the liability of the Insurance Company on account of claim by the pillion rider on a motor cycle, considering the judgment of Delhi High Court in MAC App. No. 176 of 2009 –Yashpal Luthra and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, decided on 9.12.2009, which was followed by this Court in FAO No. 1595 of 2008 –Davinder Singh v. Mandeep Singh and others, decided on 25.3.2010. Learned counsel further submitted that the application filed by the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was FAO No. 2140 of 2008 [2] allowed vide order dated 24.10.2006 and challenge in the present appeal is also to the award of the Tribunal on quantum. The age of the deceased in the present case was opined to be 37-38 years in the post-mortem report and considering that fact, multiplier of 16 applied by the Tribunal is on the higher side, which should have been twelve. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4- claimants submitted that the estimated age mentioned in the post-mortem report cannot be the sole basis to record a finding therefor. In the evidence led by the claimants, the age of the deceased was proved to be 35 years and considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 16 has been rightly applied. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The age mentioned in the post-mortem report on estimate basis cannot be said to be final, as there is always some plus-minus. The age of the deceased was claimed to be 35 years by his legal representatives. Once they had proved the age to be 35 years and which was close even to the age mentioned in the post-mortem report, I do not find any reason to merely rely on the post- mortem report and hold that the finding of the learned Tribunal holding the age of the deceased as 35 years is perverse. Accordingly, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is rejected. As far as application of multiplier is concerned, in the age group of 30-35 years, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), opined that multiplier should be 16. The same has been applied by the learned Tribunal in the present case. Considering that fact, the finding of the learned Tribunal on that account in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company also does not deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that there being appeal filed by the claimants as well, seeking further enhancement of compensation, the same shall not be effected by the present order and will be considered independently on its own merits. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.3.2010 mk