FAO No.997 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.997 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : October 29, 2009 Union of India and others ... Appellants VERSUS Sanjeev Puri & Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The Union of India, by way of the present appeal, has mainly challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants – respondents No.1 to 3 (herein referred as `the claimants') by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (herein referred as `the Tribunal'). The deceased was 62 years old lady. The contention is that she was serving on the shop of her husband, aged about 70 years. The Tribunal had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/-, while assessing her income as Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and after deducting Rs.35,000/- towards self-dependency and then applying the multiplier of `5'. The Tribunal mainly has relied upon the statement of Sanjeev Puri (PW1), who stated FAO No.997 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] that Neelam Rani - deceased used to earn Rs.17,000/- per month. The other evidence led by the respondent/claimant is in the shape of Income Tax Returns. Having scrutinised the record, it transpires that the deceased was admittedly 62 years old house wife. The income tax return for the year 2004-2005 (Ex.P12) reveals that she was earning Rs.1,72,871/- per annum and as per income tax return for the year 2005-2006 (Ex.P13), she had the income of Rs.1,89,261/- per annum. While, further probing into the returns, it transpires that this whole income was from rent or interest, which remains intact. Even after the death of the deceased (Neelam Rani), her this income would remain intact and devolve upon the legal heirs i.e, the claimants. It may further be observed that nothing has been shown in the income tax returns, if she was deriving any income while working as an employee at the shop. Had she been helping at the shop, she would have at least shown some amount from that source in her income tax returns. Now, I am left with the statement of Sanjeev Puri (PW1). He has not disclosed as to from which source, she had been earning this amount, except stating that she was helping her husband in running the shop. Thus, while reiterating that had she been earning Rs.17,000/- per month, while working at the shop, then she must have shown this amount in her income tax returns. In the circumstances, the testimony of Sanjeev Puri (PW1) cannot be relied upon. Hence, it is held that the Tribunal fell in error while making the guess work while assessing the income of the deceased at such an exorbitant rate. As a matter of fact, Neelam Rani – deceased might be a house- FAO No.997 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] wife, but she being 62 years of age, instead of helping in the family affairs, must have been dependent on her legal representatives for her livelihood. But in any case, I am left to assess her notional income at Rs.2,000/- per month i.e, Rs.24,000/- per year. It has been observed in case Smt.Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR(Civil) 77 that in case of deceased being between the age group of 60-70 years, multiplier of '7' be applied. As such, while applying the multiplier of `7' in this case, if calculated, the compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.1,68,000/- (2000 x 12 x 7 = 168000). However, since the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective and has ignored the aforesaid glaring facts, therefore, the interference by this Court has become inevitable. Accordingly, the appeal is partly accepted and the compensation is reduced to Rs.1,68,000/-. All other terms of the impugned award shall remain intact. No order as to costs. October 29, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE