FAO NO. 3719 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 3719 of 2011 Date of order: 29.09.2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Nand Lal and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S. Sahi, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. None for respondent no.3. Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for respondent no.4 **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by the insurer against the award dated 11.11.2010 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- have been awarded in favour of the claimants as compensation on the death of their son in a road side accident that took place on 20.11.2008. The case of the parties is as under:- On 20.11.2008 Mitun Basumatory alongwith Sunderpal, driver and one Om Parkash had gone to Barwala. He was returning from Barwala towards Delhi with eggs loaded in canter bearing registration no.PB-09E-5499. When they were near Kesari Adda Shahbad, it started FAO NO. 3719 of 2011 2 drizzling. The driver parked the canter towards left side of the road with indicators and back lights on. Mitun Basumatory was covering the eggs by placing a canopy over the canter. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration no.HR45-4802 came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the canter with great force, as a result of which, Mitun Basumatory fell down from the canter and suffered fatal injuries. Mitun Basumatory was saving his entire salary and was sending the same to his parents. He was having one younger brother and three sisters and he was living at the house of Sardar Swaran Singh. He did not have to spend anything on his accommodation and food. He was unmarried and on these facts, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation. The claim was opposed by the respondents. It is claimed to be false and frivolous by respondents no.1 and 2. They have even denied the very accident to have taken place as alleged by the claimants. The insurance company has claimed collusion between the claimants and the other respondents. The amount claimed as compensation is said to be highly excessive. It has also denied the factum of accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1- Whether the accident in question causing the death of Mitun Basumatory took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck no.HR-45/4802 by respondent no.1, as alleged?OPP FAO NO. 3719 of 2011 3 2- If issue no.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom?OPD 3- Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections raised by the respondents in their written statements?OPR 4- Whether the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, in view of the preliminary objections raised in the written statement and whether there has been a breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance?OPR3 4- Relief” Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has decided the claim petition vide award dated 11.11.2010, vide which a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- has been awarded to the claimants with interest @ 7-1/2% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, the insurer has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. R.S. Dhull, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.Sahi, learned counsel for respondents no.1&2, and Mr. Pankaj Bali, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and have gone through the record. FAO NO. 3719 of 2011 4 Learned counsel for the appellant has taken three exceptions to the award. The first is on the income of the deceased, the second is regarding the cut imposed on the said income to access the dependency of the claimants and the third is regarding the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal to access the compensation. According to him, there was no evidence to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month. He has further submitted that the claimants are the parents and in case of a young unmarried person where the claimants are the parents, the cut to be imposed for personal expenses of the deceased on himself should be 1/2 instead of 1/3. He has, moreover, submitted that the multiplier in such a case would be governed by the aforesaid age of the claimants and, therefore, the multiplier of 11 is also not appropriate. Learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has observed that even an unskilled labourer earns Rs.3500/- per month now a days. According to him, here the deceased was the cleaner over the canter. Satpal, the driver of the canter, had made a statement that Mitun Basumatory was getting Rs.5000/- per month as salary. Even the owner of the canter appeared in the witness box to say so. Learned Tribunal has rightly found no reason to disbelieve the two witnesses on this aspect and has, therefore, taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month. The cut to be imposed on the income of the deceased to work out the dependency of the claimants would depend upon the facts FAO NO. 3719 of 2011 5 of each case. In case, where the claimants are more, even though they are the parents, the cut of ½ is not to be adopted as general rule. It has been laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 that deduction of 50%, when the deceased was bachelor, is not a general rule. It has been further laid down that if family of the bachelor is larger, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to 1/3rd and contribution to family will be taken as 2/3rd. In the case in hand, the deceased is said to have survived not only by the petitioners but also by a younger brother and three sisters. In such a situation, the deceased though was bachelor could not spend on himself more than 1/3rd of his income. Learned Tribunal has, therefore, rightly applied the cut of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and has taken 2/3rd of the income as the monthly dependency of the claimants. The age of the claimants, the mother, and father of the deceased is proved on record as 50 and 54 respectively. The multiplier suggested in case of the age group of 51 to 55 is of 11 and the multiplier has also been rightly adopted by learned Tribunal. In these circumstances, I find no substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is consequently found to have no merit and the same is dismissed. 29.09.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge