F.A.O NO. 3167 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O NO. 3167 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 26.02.2010 Jatinder Kaur and others ...Appellants versus Sunil Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is an appeal preferred by the claimant-widow, two minor children and mother of the deceased Rajmastan Singh, who died in a motor vehicular accident. The learned Tribunal, after adjudication, accepted the claim petition and allowed an amount of Rs.4,42,000/-. The income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3000/- per month and the cut of 1/3rd was imposed. So, in this manner, the monthly dependency was calculated as Rs.2000/-. F.A.O NO. 3167 OF 2009 -2- The age of the deceased was taken as 29 years and multiplier of 18 was applied by the Tribunal. So, the amount was calculated as Rs.4,32,000/-. Another sum of Rs.9500/- was given on account of funeral expenses and loss of consortium and loss of estate. In this manner, the amount was calculated as Rs.4,41,500/- and by rounding the same, it was taken as Rs.4,42,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- per month as driver. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of deceased as Rs.3000/-. However, that argument cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the testimony of PW-2 Manmohan Singh-employer of the deceased and on the strength of same, it is argued that the deceased was drawing the salary of Rs.4000/- per month. Besides that, the deceased was getting allowance of Rs.100/- per day. However, the statement has been appreciated by the Tribunal in right prospective, as no documentary evidence has been placed on file. So, the income assessed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the dependency has been taken on the lower side. In view of authority “ Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr.” 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, it is argued that the Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th amount of income as the personal expenses incurred by the F.A.O NO. 3167 OF 2009 -3- deceased for his maintenance. No contrary authority has been cited in this regard by learned counsel for the respondent. So relying upon the authority Sarla Verma's case (supra), the dependency is taken as Rs.2250/- per month by deducting 1/4th income and the yearly dependency comes to Rs.27,000/- (2250 x 12). The multiplier applied by the Tribunal is perfectly all right. In this manner, the claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.4,86,000/-. The Tribunal has granted Rs.9500/- regarding loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. So, in this manner the amount calculated comes to Rs.4,95,500/- and by rounding the same, it comes to Rs.4,96,000/-. So in this manner, an amount of Rs.54,000/- stands enhanced. The enhanced amount shall be paid to the widow alone along with interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal till its realization. The liability to pay the said amount shall be the same as held by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall be shared in the same ratio as held by the Tribunal. Disposed of. FEBRUARY 26, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE