r:-. ,t- ~. ~ ~:::» 0 (J :I: C)-:I: '<2: 'Z I~<~ <2::I: ~m <2: .,z:::» Q. -- J ~6 FAO No.1088 of 1988 [1] 41 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1088 of 1988 Date of decision: 12.7.2006. Smt.Shankar Devi and others v. Shri Lachhman Dass and others. Present: Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3. Raiesh Bindal, J. This is an appeal against award dated 7.11.1988, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No.14 of 1988. The claim petition was filed by widow mother and two minor sisters of deceased- Krishan Kumar alias Raju, who died in an accident on 9.7.1987. It was alleged that the deceased was 15 years of age and was still continuing his studies. On the issue of accident, the learned Tribunal returned its finding in favour of the claimants by holding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor. The only dispute in the present case is regarding quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants-appellants by the Tribunal. A perusal of the lower court file shows that in certificate Ex.P.10, " issued by Board of School Education Haryana, date of birth of the deceased is 6.9.1969; which means that on the date of accident, he was about 18 years of age. Second Schedule, appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') makes a provision for assessment of income for non-earning persons. In the present case, assessment has to be made under the said Act. In U.P.State Road -- Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), it has been held that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that the multiplier , , r.(;:Z/ FAD No.1088 of 1988 [2] method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. In Maniu Devi and another v. Musafir Paswan and another, 2005 ACJ 99, Hon'ble the Supreme Court awarded a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- on account of death of a non-earning boy aged 13-14 years, in an accident taking place on 2.7.1998. Similar view was taken by this Court in Nirmal Maria v. Ram Singh and others, 2005(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 405, where on account of to-" ::) 00 ,:I: ~'i: C) '{, :i:«z ;~ .~«J: ~m« -;)z::) D.. death of a 14 years old school-going child, who expired in an accident taking place on 23.1.1997, income was assessed at Rs. 15,000/- per annum as per Schedule II to the Act and applying a multiplier of 15, compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- was granted. In the present case, in my view, income of the deceased, who died in an accident on 9.7.1987, can be assessed at Rs. 1,000/- per month and dependency at Rs. 500/- per month and applying a multiplier of 16, the compensation comes to Rs. 96,000/-. In addition to this, the appellant would also be entitled to Rs. 2,000/- on account of funer~l expenses. The additional amount of compensation along with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim . petition, Le., 28.7.1987, till realisation be paid to appellant No.1 only. The award of the Tribunal is modified in the manner indicated above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Rajes " Judge 12.7.2006 mk \:'\ \?/ c)\r/\6l / \~~\ A ~,~ ~()' ~ ~ )c3''' / ,.\} \J~( ~