FAO No. 3221 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3221 of 2011 (in MACT No.171 of 2009) Date of decision: 30.11.2011 Smt.Rekha Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Kranti Prasad and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 3.1.2011, on account of death of Rajeev Shokeen, in a motor vehicular accident on 15.10.2010. Learned counsel for the appellants refers to Ex.P7, the Salary Certificate and contends that the deceased had been working with Walsons Services as Data Entry Operator and had recurring a salary of `5968/- per month. But the learned Tribunal without considering this fact, taking him as a casual labourer, assessed his income at `3000/- per month. He further FAO No. 3221 of 2011 2 contends that as per the PMR Ex.P6, the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident. But the learned Tribunal, ignoring the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 , applied the multiplier of 16 instead of 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, there is no scope for any further enhancement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record, it reveals that there is no credible evidence that the deceased had been drawing a salary of `5968/- p.m. The deceased did not possess any degree or diploma in the field of Data Entry Operation. Moreover, there is no proof of any Provident Fund or proof regarding deposit of EPF or ESI contribution. There being no conclusive proof of salary, the learned Tribunal considered him as a casual labourer and assessed his income as `3000/- per month. As the deceased had been considered as a casual labour, his income should have been assessed in view of the Notification dated 27.6.2007 issued by the Labour Department, Haryana Government under the Minimum Wages Act, which is at `3510/- p.m. Ordered accordingly. Furthermore, it is proved on record that the deceased was 22 years at the time of his death, as per PMR Ex.P6. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra), FAO No. 3221 of 2011 3 the multiplier is increased from 16 to 18. The amount awarded i.e. ` 10000/- towards funeral and transportation and `10,000/- towards loss of consortium is just and reasonable. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the parties. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to ` 5,68,620/- (3510 (income) x 3/4 (dependency) x 12 x 18 (multiplier). The balance amount i.e. ` 1,36,620/- ( 5,68,620 – 4,32,000 (except conventional heads already awarded by the learned Tribunal) shall be paid to the appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned award, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the appeal, till its realisation. In view of above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above. 30.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE