FAO No.5134 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5134 of 2010 Date of Decision : 07.11.2011 Tilak Raj and others .......Appellants Versus Jasbir Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide Award dated 15.03.2010. Service of respondent No.1, who is owner-cum-driver, is dispensed with. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that on 11.04.2009, the deceased, Manjit Kaur, was going to her house in Village Sohal, Tehsil Gurdaspur, from Dhariwal, along with her husband and son on motorcycle bearing No.PB-06-F-1718, which was being driven by her husband, Tilak Raj. Sardari Lal, the brother-in- 1 FAO No.5134 of 2010 law of the deceased, was following them on his motorcycle. At about 5.30 p.m. when they were about 100 yards behind the turn of Village Sohal on Gurdaspur-Amritsar G.T. Road near Gaba Filling Station, a car bearing No.DL-3C-AD-7144, being driven by respondent No.1 at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, hit against their motorcycle. As a result thereof, the deceased fell on the road and suffered multiple grievous injuries and her head was crushed in the accident. She was rushed to the Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where she succumbed to her injuries on the same day. FIR No.51 dated 11.04.2009 was registered at Police Station Dhariwal. The claimant-appellants preferred claim petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of `20.00 lacs on account of the death of Manjit Kaur, the deceased. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned Award, rejected the claim of appellant No.1, Tilak Raj, holding that he was not dependent upon the deceased. Appellant Nos.2 to 4 were granted an amount of `2,27,400/- in equal shares as compensation. Aggrieved against the said Award, the claimant-appellants are in appeal before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company and perused the record. From the record, it is apparent that appellant No.1-Tilak Raj, who is the husband of the deceased-Manjit Kaur, is working with the Punjab State Electricity Board and earning `16,000/- per month as salary. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim of appellant No.1 by holding that he was not dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. This Court finds favour with the reasoning given by the learned 2 FAO No.5134 of 2010 Tribunal on this point and he has been rightly held to be not entitled to claim compensation. In view of the above, the appeal qua appellant No.1 is hereby dismissed. The learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned Award, assessed the monthly income of the deceased as `2,000/- which is far less even if it is presumed that the deceased was an unskilled labourer. In this view of the matter, I feel that the ends of justice would be met if the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as `3,000/- per month. I order accordingly. Therefore, the compensation on account of dependency comes to `3,36,000/- (` 3,000/- X 2/3 X 12 X 14). The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of `9,000/- against the head ‘Consortium, transportation of the dead body and other expenses’, which deserves to the enhanced in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the compensation against this head including funeral expenses is enhanced from `9,000/- to `20,000/-. In this manner, the claimants-appellants No.2 to 4 are held entitled to the enhanced compensation of `1,19,000/- in the same terms as provided by the learned Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable to the claimants-appellants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which, they shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the appeal till its realization. 3 FAO No.5134 of 2010 Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed and the Award dated 15.3.2010 of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 07.11.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 4