IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** Civil Misc. No. 23724/C.II of 2007 F.A.O. No. 4810 of 2007 Date of decision: 31.1.2008 National Insurance Company Ltd. --- Appellant Versus Mohinder Pal Singh and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, the challenge is to the award dated 1.8.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby a sum of Rs. 7,61,476/- was awarded in favour of the respondent-claimants as compensation for the death of Wazir Kaur. As per finding recorded by the Tribunal, Wazir Kaur who at the relevant time was travelling in a rickshaw, got serious injuries in the accident caused by the driver of the offending vehicle, and later on died. The accident took place on 31.5.2005 due to rash and negligent driving by respondent no.5 of Jeep bearing registration no. UP-78AN-2006 which had pulled the rickshaw with force by which Wazir Kaur was travelling. F.A.O. No. 4810 of 2007 By the impugned award, the Tribunal ordered that since the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, the liability to pay the compensation would be of the said Company and the amount of compensation shall also be payable with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellant-Company for taking all defences was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 7.6.2006. The counsel further submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive as the deceased was 47 years old and therefore, the multiplier of 11 applied for purpose of awarding compensation was on the higher side. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the award of the Tribunal. It was proved on record on the basis of evidence produced by the claimants that at the time of accident, the deceased aged 47 years was employed as a Peon in the Patiala Cooperative Bank Limited, Basantpura and her carry-home salary was Rs. 9693/- per month. Out of this amount, the Tribunal in the very first instance segregated an amount of Rs. 4,000/- there from, observing that she being an office-going must be spending Rs. 4000/- on herself and contributing the rest of the amount to her family every month. On the basis of this, the Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimants on the deceased to the tune of Rs. 5693/- per month. In so far as the application of multiplier is concerned, the age of the deceased was proved to be 47 years on the record and, thus, the multiplier of 11 applied for awarding compensation cannot be said to 2 F.A.O. No. 4810 of 2007 be on the higher side or unreasonable. On calculation of the compensation accordingly, in which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was further added on account of expenses for performance of last rites and on funeral etc., the total amount came to Rs. 7,61,476/- which cannot in any case be said to be excessive. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merit, no order is being passed on Civil Misc. No. 23724/C.II of 2007 seeking condonation of delay of two days in filing the appeal. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) January 31, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 3