FAO No.4672 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 4672 of 2010 Date of order: 08.11.2011 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Lajja Ram and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Sharma Budladewale, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondents no.4 and 5. -- Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal by the insurer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula(for short 'Tribunal') in a sum of Rs.6,22,000/- vide award dated 09.02.2010. The claim brought by Lajja Ram and Smt. Krishana Devi, the parents of the deceased Manjit Kaur under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short 'the Act') is as under:- On 09.04.2009 Manjit Kaur alongwith other students was going to attend her college i.e. Brahmrishi College of Education affiliated to Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, being student of Master of Arts in FAO No.4672 of 2010 2 Public Administration in a Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration no. HR-68-2027 , driven by respondent no.1 at a very high speed. When the bus was near Mallah turning at about 9.40 AM, respondent no.1 turned the bus there at a very high speed, on account of which, he could not keep the bus in his control and the same fell in a deep pit. All the occupants of the bus suffered injuries. Manjit Kaur was taken to General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula where she was declared as brought dead. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was spent on her last rites. The deceased was aged 24 -1/2 years and was a very talented girl. She had the prospects of becoming a lecturer or a teacher. She was earning a sum of Rs.8000/- per month by doing coaching work at home. They have claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation on the death of Manjit Kaur. Respondent no.1 has denied in his written statement the accident to have been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the bus in question. According to him, at the site of the accident, a JCB bearing registration no.HR-68-3125 and a crane bearing no.5054 belonging to a construction company namely Chadha & Chadha Construction Company, were parked on the road in such a way that it had blocked the pucca road leading to Himshikha, Pinjore. There was a diversion constructed by Chadha & Chadha Construction Company. The said diversion was not of proper strength and the same gave way leading to the accident. According to him, the accident is an act of God and he is not responsible for the same. FAO No.4672 of 2010 3 Respondents no.2 and 3 in their joint written statement have adopted the stand of respondent no.1. They have claimed that the bus was insured with ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent no.4 in its separate written statement has denied the accident to have occurred in the manner alleged by the claimants. The claim petition is said to have been filed by the claimants in collusion with respondents no. 1 to 3 to extract money from the answering respondent. It has been alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The claim petition is, therefore, prayed to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 19.09.2009:- “1- Whether Ms. Manjit Kaur had died on account of the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, as alleged ?OPP 2- If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount?OPP 3- Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so to what effect ?OPR-4. 4- Relief” Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition, vide the impugned award. FAO No.4672 of 2010 4 Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Suman Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S.K. Sharma Budladewale, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, and Shri Kunal Garg, learned Assistant Advocate General, for respondents no.4 and 5 and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimants are the parents of the deceased, who was an unmarried girl of the age of 24 years. According to him, the income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs.3000/- per month and the entire amount has been taken as dependency of the claimants. He has submitted that the multiplier of 17 has moreover been applied for assessing compensation in this case which is not proper because the same would be selected on the age of the claimants. According to him, Lajja Ram, claimant no.1 is aged 49 years and though the age of his wife has not come, she may be a couple of years younger to him and their average age would be between 46 and 50 years for which multiplier of 13 is held to be proper in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has grossly erred in applying the multiplier of 17 in this case. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, on the other hand, has submitted that learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month and has taken the dependency of the FAO No.4672 of 2010 5 claimants at Rs.3000/- per month. According to him, the multiplier adopted is, however, on the higher side, which may be suitably reduced. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to notice the fact that the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month. The deceased had been 24 years old and was studying in M.A. (Public Administration). She may be giving coaching and I find no fault with the Tribunal taking the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month. Taking the dependency of the claimants at 50% of this amount, the same comes to Rs.3000/- per month and multiplying it 12, the annual dependency of the dependents comes to Rs.36,000/-. Multiplying this amount with 13, the multiplier held proper for the age of 46 to 50 years. I find a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- to have been lost by the claimants in the death of Ms. Manjit Kaur . A sum of Rs.10,000/- can be allowed to the claimants in the name of loss of estate and funeral expenses and, therefore, the amount to which the claimants were entitled as compensation on the death of Ms. Manjit Kaur had been Rs.4,78,000/-, which has been wrongly assessed as Rs.6,22,000. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation allowed by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.4,78,000/-, which shall be payable alongwith interest as allowed by the Tribunal. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 08.11.2011 dinesh