F.A.O. No. 4488 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4488 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 18th, 2011 Jasbir Kaur and others .... Appellants Versus Amar Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation. On 1.8.2008, Varinder Singh (deceased) left for Kala Amb (Himachal Pradesh) on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-99AB-F/4487/T. His cousin Yogender Singh and brother Harjit Singh were on another motorcycle. After doing their work at Kala Amb they started for Raipur Rani. They were driving their motorcycles at moderate speed and on their correct side of F.A.O. No. 4488 of 2010 2 .. the road. When they were near the petrol pump of village Hussain, they saw a car bearing registration No. CH-08-T/2116 coming from the opposite side. It was being driven in a reckless manner. The driver lost control over the vehicle and it had hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, Virender Singh fell down from the motorcycle and suffered serious head injuries alongwith injuries on the other parts of his body. The car driver did not help him in taking him to the hospital. When Yoginder Singh, his cousin and Harjit Singh, his brother, were taking Virender Singh in a private vehicle to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh, he died on the way. A report about the accident was lodged with the police. The deceased is claimed to have been working for Birla Sunlife Insurance Company, Ambala Cantt., and was earning ` 12,000/- per month as commission. He was also supplying milk to the dairies and was earning ` 8,000/- per month on account of the same. It is claimed that Virender Singh was 24 years old at the time of accident and was well educated. Consequently, a sum of ` 20,00,000/- is claimed as compensation. The claim petition is resisted by the respondents on various grounds. While respondents No.1 and 2 have denied their involvement in the accident and have claimed that a false criminal case has been got registered against respondent No.1, respondent no.3, the insurer, has claimed the vehicle to have been plied without a valid and effective driving licence, registration certificate and route permit and, consequently, the F.A.O. No. 4488 of 2010 3 .. insured is said to have committed violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. On this ground, the insurance company has sought exoneration from the liability to indemnify the insured. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 while driving Montero Car No. CH-08-T/2116 resulting into death of Virender Singh, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom, the claimants are entitled to OPP 3. Whether there were a violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation? OPR (3) 4. Relief. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, "the Tribunal") awarded compensation in a sum of ` 5,28,400/- to the claimants vide award dated 21.10.2009. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimants have brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Pardeep Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellants has questioned the F.A.O. No. 4488 of 2010 4 .. award on the ground of income assessed for Virender Singh by the Tribunal. According to him, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at ` 3,600/- per month, which according to the Tribunal had been the minimum wages of an unskilled labour in the year 2008, when the accident took place. He has submitted that the deceased was working as Commission Agent with Birla Sunlife Insurance Company and there is evidence on record coming in the statement of Geeta Chaudhary, Branch Head, Birla Sunlife Insurance Co., Ambala Cantt, of payment of ` 10,670/- as tax on the commission paid to the deceased in the year 2006-07 and of payment of ` 22,032/- as tax deducted at source for the year 2007-08. According to him, these facts clearly show that the deceased was an educated person and he was receiving commission from Birla Sunlife Insurance Co. and was even paying income tax, which was deducted from his commission by the said company. He has stated that these circumstances clearly show that the income taken by the Tribunal of the deceased is on lower side. The evidence coming on the record in the statement of Ms. Geeta Chaudhary (PW-3) shows that the deceased could not be taken as an unskilled labourer. He was having a motorcycle and status of the deceased cannot be taken to be that of minimum wager. He was getting commission from Birla Sunlife Insurance company on which tax was deducted at source. These circumstances clearly show that the income assessed by the Tribunal for the deceased has been on the lower side. This F.A.O. No. 4488 of 2010 5 .. circumstance, therefore, justifies taking of the income of the deceased at ` 4,500/- per month. Taking the dependency of the claimants at 2/3rd of the same at ` 3,000/-, per month the same comes to ` 36,000/- when multiplied with 12. This annual dependency of the claimants in a sum of ` 36,000/- is to be further multiplied by 18, the multiplier suitable in this case, as also adopted by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation. This way, the compensation awardable to the claimants comes to ` 6,48,000/-. To this amount, a sum of ` 20,000/- can be added in the name of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants are found entitled to ` 6,68,000/- as compensation for the death of Virender Singh in the aforesaid accident. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from ` 5,28,400/- to ` 6,68,000/- which shall be payable to the claimants with interest as awarded by the Tribunal and would be shared in the ratio in terms of the award of the Tribunal. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 18th, 2011 som