FAO NO. 84 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 84 of 2011 Date of order: 18.10.2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Gurjant Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. K.S. Dhanora, Advocate for Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate for respondents no.3 and 4. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.563-CII of 2011 The prayer for exemption from filing original/certified copy of the Annexure A/2 is allowed. CM stands disposed of accordingly. CR No.84 of 2011 This is an appeal brought by National Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of Tata Spacio No.E-II-CH-02-1801 questioning the amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 17.09.2010. FAO NO. 84 of 2011 2 Gurjant Singh and Charanjit Kaur claiming themselves to be parents of the deceased Jagtar Singh have brought a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- . The case set up by them is as under:- On 18.09.2008, at about 1.50 AM, the deceased was going on his motorcycle bearing registration no.PB-04-M-1123 alongwith two other persons towards Piccadily Chowk. He was driving his motorcycle at a normal speed. In the meanwhile, a Tata Spacio bearing registration no.E-II-CH-02-1801 came from the side of Bus Stand Sector 17, Chandigarh, which was being driven by Sonu Kumar, respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. It was also moving in a zig-zag manner and had hit the motorcycle, on account of which he and others riding the motorcycle fell down on the road. Jagtar Singh was taken to PGI Chandigarh for treatment, where he died within two hours on his reaching there. A sum of Rs.50,000/- or Rs.60,000/- was spent in his treatment. It is claimed that Jagtar Singh was a CAD Engineer-cum- site surveyor with designing solutions working with the CAD Professionals having its head office at 189, Chand Nagar, Near Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and branch office at 2677-A Sector 66 Mohali. He was drawing a salary of Rs.11,500/- per month. He had a bright future. Had he been alive, he would have been promoted to higher ranks. He was contributing his income for the use by the claimants. FAO NO. 84 of 2011 3 On notice, the claim petition has been resisted by the respondents. Respondents no.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have denied the claim petition to be maintainable. They have denied the accident to have taken place involving the vehicle in question. They have even denied the claimants to be dependents of the deceased. According to them, the claimants have suffered no monetary loss. The other averments of the claimants are denied. Respondent no.3, National Insurance Company Ltd. has denied respondent no.1 to be holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. According to it, respondent no.2 had full knowledge of this fact and, therefore, respondent no.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The claim petition is alleged to be vague. It is claimed that the claimants have colluded with respondents no.1 and 2 with a view to extract compensation from the answering respondent. The accident is claimed to have occurred due to the negligence of Jagtar Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1- Whether Jagtar Singh died due to injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident on 18.09.2008 when Tata Spacio No.E-II-CH-02-1801 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 struck against motor cycle No.PB-04-M-1123 being driven by the deceased?OPA FAO NO. 84 of 2011 4 2- Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPA 3- Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPR-2 4- Whether respondentno.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ?OPR-3 5- Relief” Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has decided the claim petition vide award dated 17.09.2010 awarding a sum of Rs.15,66,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the insurer of the offending vehicle has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. I.S. Brar, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Mr. K.S. Dhanora, Advocate for Mr. Subhash Goyal, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4 and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the award on two grounds. According to him, the cut applied to take out the amount likely to be spent by the deceased on himself of 1/3 is not appropriate in this case. It is a case of the death of a bachelor where the claimants are his parents and the dependency of the parents is normally taken as half of the income of the deceased. According to him, there are no circumstances calling for deviation from the said general rule. He has further submitted that the multiplier of 17 selected by the Tribunal is also wrong. According to him, the multiplier in such a case would be FAO NO. 84 of 2011 5 governed by the age of the claimants and not by the age of the deceased. He has submitted that although the deceased had been 24 years of age at the time of his death, the claimants are the parents of the age of 56 and 55 years respectively and the multiplier of 17 could not be applied in this case. According to him, as per the decision of Honble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 , the multiplier of 11 at the most could be adopted and, therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is definitely on a very higher side, which is required to be reduced. Learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 has submitted on the other hand that cut of 1/3 could also be applied in such a case. According to him, the multiplier of 17 has been rightly adopted by the Tribunal to assess compensation. He has lastly submitted that the deceased was very young and he was getting a salary of Rs.11,500/- per month, which would have increased manifold till the time of his retirement and, therefore, income in the same amount is required to be added for assessment of compensation toward future prospects as has been held by Honble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others' case (supra). It is a case where the deceased is claimed to be a CAD engineer. There is nothing on the record to suggest that his employment was permanent. The addition to income as per Smt. Sarla Verma and others' case (supra) has to be made if the deceased had a permanent job. Although nothing has been stated by the claimants in this regard, yet the FAO NO. 84 of 2011 6 job of the claimant was with private employer and the same cannot be taken to be permanent. Therefore, the ratio of Smt. Sarla Verma and others' case (supra) would have no application to the facts of this case. In case of death of a bachelor, the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and others' case (supra) the deduction should be 50%. It is not the case of the claimants of there being other persons depending on the deceased. Therefore, the deduction to the income of the deceased has to be of 50% to find out the dependency of the claimants. Since learned counsel for the appellant has not taken any exception to the income of the deceased , the same is taken as Rs.11,500/- as alleged by the claimants and 50% of the same at Rs.5,750/- is the monthly dependency of the claimants. Multiplying the same with 12, the annual dependency comes to Rs.69,000/-. Taking the multiplier of 11, the claimants are shown to have lost Rs.7,59,000/- in the death of their son Jagtar Singh. Adding to it, a sum of Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, I hold that the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,69,000/- as compensation on the death of Jagtar Singh. For these reasons, the appeal is accepted, reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.15,66,000/- to Rs.7,69,000/- which shall be payable to the claimants in the manner and with interest as ordered by the Tribunal. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 18 .10.2011 JUDGE dinesh