F.A.O. No. 5714 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 5714 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 7th, 2011 Neena Chopra and others .... Appellants Versus Satender Kumar and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Surinder Saini, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R.M.Suri, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal brought by the dependents of Ashok Chopra, who has died on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road side accident on 25.9.2008. Their claim petition, brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"), has been allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 16.3.2010 in a sum of ` 12,91,800/-. The case of the claimants is as under. On 25.9.2008 at about 10.30 p.m., Ashok Chopra was going towards Bahalgarh on motorcycle bearing registration No. F.A.O. No. 5714 of 2010 2 .. HR-10H-9529, which was driven by him at a moderate speed and on his left side of the road. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration No. HR-69-0309 came from his back side. It was driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the motorcycle from behind. The motorcycle fell down as a consequence thereof and the truck went over the head of Ashok Chopra on account of which, he died at the spot. The driver of the truck stopped the vehicle and leaving the truck at the spot, he succeeded in escaping. Ashok Chopra is claimed to have been aged 40 years at the time of the accident. He was employed with Dynamic Informatics Private Limited, Sonepat and was earning `12,900/- per month. Claiming that a sum of ` 50,000/- was spent on the last rites of the deceased and transportation of the dead body, a sum of ` 25,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation. Respondent Nos 1 and 2 have admitted the factum of the accident but have denied the same to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. It is claimed that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased. It is further averred that while overtaking the truck, the deceased lost his balance and came under the wheel of the truck. The amount claimed as compensation is stated to be highly excessive. Respondent no.3, the insurer, has also denied the accident to have taken place in the manner alleged by the claimants. It has adopted the plea of respondents No.1 and 2 in F.A.O. No. 5714 of 2010 3 .. this regard, claiming the deceased himself to be author of the accident. It is averred that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and, consequently, the insured had violated the terms of the insurance policy. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether Ashok Chopra died in a road side accident which took place on 25.09.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR- 69-0309 being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No. 3, if so to what effect? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, if so its effect? OPR-3 4. Relief. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 12,91,800/- to the claimants vide the impugned award. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimant has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Surinder Saini, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.M.Suri, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. I have gone through the record F.A.O. No. 5714 of 2010 4 .. carefully. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Tribunal cannot be held justified at all in making a deduction of ` 1,500/- per month from proved income of the deceased. According to him, learned Tribunal has deducted ` 1,500/- from the salary of the deceased as the expenses of the deceased on his conveyance as well as pocket expenses. According to him, a cut of 1/3rd or 1/4th which ever is suitable, in a set of given facts is applied for taking out that part of the income of the deceased which would have been spent by him on himself, had he been alive. According to him, this another cut is not justified at all. He has further submitted that the deceased has been survived by his widow, two minor children and widowed mother. According to him, all the four were dependent on the deceased. He has submitted that when the number of dependent family members of a person had been four to six, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 has laid down the cut of 1/4th to be applied . He has submitted that learned Tribunal has applied cut of 1/3rd to assess the dependency of the petitioners and he is, thus, not justified in applying this cut. Learned counsel for the appellants has lastly submitted that the multiplier has also been wrongly applied by learned Tribunal. According to him, learned Tribunal has taken multiplier F.A.O. No. 5714 of 2010 5 .. of 14 to assess the compensation while as per Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier in this case, where Ashok Chopra died at the age of 40 years is of 15. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 had nothing with him to justify learned Tribunal on any of the three points where learned counsel for the appellants had claimed him to have erred. The amount of ` 12,900/- per month as the proved income of the deceased and cut of 1/3rd or 1/4th has to be applied to this income to assess the dependency of the claimants. As per Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra), the cut of 1/4th is required to be applied in a case like the present one, where the dependent family members are from 4 to 6. As they are four in the case before me, the cut of 1/4th is required to be applied to assess the dependency of the claimants. Similarly, multiplier of 15 instead of 14 is applicable to this case. After applying a cut of 1/4th to the income of ` 12,900/- of the deceased and multiplying the remainder with 12, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to ` 1,16,100/-, which when multiplied with 15, comes to ` 17,41,500/-. Adding to it a sum of ` 20,000/-, payable to the dependent family members of the deceased, in case one of the claimants is the spouse of the deceased, in the name of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, I find the claimants to be entitled to ` 17,61,500/- as compensation on the death of Shri Ashok Chopra. F.A.O. No. 5714 of 2010 6 .. The appeal is consequently, allowed enhancing the compensation from ` 12,91,800/- to ` 17,61,500/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 7th, 2011 som F.A.O. No. 5714 of 2010 7 ..