FAO No. 4778 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4778 of 2009 and Cross Objections No. 5-CII of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.5.2010 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant v. Parmeshwari and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. Mr. S. S. Kharb, Advocate for the cross-objector. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 5, being parents and widow of deceased-Rajbir, have been awarded Rs. 7,49,840/- as compensation in equal shares, i.e., 1/3rd each. The widow has also filed cross-objections seeking half of the amount of compensation and enhancement of amount. Briefly, the facts are that on 14.10.2004, deceased-Rajbir along with 8-10 passengers was coming from village Israna to village Ahar in a three-wheeler. When they reached in between village Pardhana and village Khalila, a tractor along with trolley bearing No. HR-06B-9397, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the three wheeler. As a result of the accident, Rajbir received injuries and ultimately died. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that considering the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation has not determined proper dependency and applied correct multiplier. Even rate of interest awarded to the claimant is also on the higher side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the cross-objector submitted that apportionment of compensation, as was done by the learned Tribunal amongst FAO No. 4778 of 2009 [2] the parents and widow is not appropriate. The widow should have been granted half of the amount of compensation and the remaining half to the parents, whereas the learned Tribunal has awarded 2/3rd of the amount of compensation to the parents and 1/3rd to the widow. It is not disputed that there was no child born out of the wedlock of the deceased with the widow. He further submitted that award of merely Rs. 5,000/- on account of transportation and last rites is on lower side, which should have been at least Rs. 20,000/-. The one fact which he could not dispute is that after the accident, the widow got re-married and is presently living happily in the new matrimonial home. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. As far as the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is concerned, the same is totally mis-conceived. The amount of compensation in the present case has been determined by the Tribunal, which is strictly in conformity with law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298. Considering the age of the deceased to be 32 years, multiplier of 17 was applied, which is not on higher side. The claimants being parents and the widow, dependency of 2/3rd, as determined by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be on higher side and similar is the position with regard to interest, which is merely 7-1/2%. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. As far as the claim made by the widow in the cross-objections filed by her is concerned, I also do not find any substance in the same. The Tribunal, while directing apportionment of compensation amongst the parents and the widow, directed that it should be shared in the ratio of 1/3rd each. It is not in dispute that even at the time of filing of claim petition, the widow had got re- married and was living happily in her new matrimonial home. Under the circumstances, the main sufferers were the parents, who lost their son. No doubt, after the death of the husband, the widow also suffered and she had to get re- married and settled in new matrimonial home, but still she has now her husband to support her, whereas the parents had lost their son, who could support them in old age. Under the circumstances, the apportionment of compensation cannot be faulted with. Even the claim for more amount on account of transportation charges and last rites by the widow of the deceased is also not justifiable. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 5,000/-. It has not come on record that the widow was having any independent income. It is normal that expenses at this stage are incurred by the parents, who are satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded. It is also a FAO No. 4778 of 2009 [3] fact that the widow, who has now filed the cross-objections, did not even prefer any claim petition before the Tribunal. It was only that she was impleaded as proforma respondent in the claim petition filed by the parents that the Tribunal directed for apportionment of compensation in her favour as well. For the reasons mentioned above, even the cross-objections filed by the widow are also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.5.2010 mk