FAO No. 2276 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2276 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.5.2010 ... Gurnam Singh Saini and another ................Appellants vs. Parminder Kaur and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for the appellants ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is an appeal directed by owner and driver of tractor trolly No. PB-70 A-3878. Parminder Kaur – widow, Surinder Kaur – mother and Mangat Ram – father of Karamjit Singh, preferred a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of Karamjit Singh in a motor vehicular accident. As per allegation of the claimant Karamjit Singh s/o Mangat Ram on 19.8.2007 at about 8.15 P.M. was proceeding from his place of work i.e. Winsome Paints Private Limited, Bhankurpur to his house while driving his motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-65- D-8852 at a normal speed. When he reached in front of Jyoti Hotel, FAO No. 2276 of 2010 -2- Police Station Dera Bassi, a tractor trolly bearing registration No. PB- 70 A-3878 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the offending vehicle') came there from opposite direction and struck against the motorcycle of Karamjit Singh. The said tractor trolly was being driven by Gurnam Singh rashly and negligently at a very high speed and on wrong side of the road. Karamjit Singh fell down on the road and received multiple grievous injuries and he died on the spot. Karamjit Singh was aged 26 years and as per allegation he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was employed with Winsome Paints Private Limited, Bhankurpur. Upon notice, respondents No. 1 and 2 – now appellants, filed joint written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. Even the factum of accident was denied. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Karamjit Singh had died due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident dated 19.8.2007 at about 8.15 P.M. on the road leading from Derabassi to Lalru in front of Jyoti Hotel caused by respondent No.1 while driving Tractor trolley bearing No.PB-70 A-3878 rashly and negligently? OPP. 2. Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Karamjit Singh and are entitled to get compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Relief. FAO No. 2276 of 2010 -3- The claimants examined PW-1 Madan Lal and PW-2 Parminder Kaur- claimant. In rebuttal, respondent No.1 appeared as PW-1 and also examined RW-2 Sunil Kumar-respondent No.2 and closed the evidence. Learned Tribunal, after appraisal of the evidence, returned the finding on issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of the claimants and an amount of Rs.4,99,600/- was granted. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid award, the driver and owner have preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no income proof of the deceased and the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,600/- per month, which is on the higher side. It is further submitted that the multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal is on the higher side. It is also contended that rate of interest @ 7% per annum, granted by the Tribunal, is also on the higher side. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellants, but do not find any force in those submissions. The award has been challenged on three main points that income of the deceased is on higher side, that multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on higher side and the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is also on higher side. The Tribunal has relied upon the authority reported as Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77. The income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.3,600/- per month i.e. of FAO No. 2276 of 2010 -4- a labourer. The cut in respect of personal expenses of the deceased, is also in consonance of Smt. Sarla Verma's case (Supra). The multiplier according to Smt. Sarla Verma's case (Supra), between the age group of 26 to 30 is 17. The age of the deceased has been assessed as 26 years. So, the multiplier has also been correctly applied. So, far as rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal is concerned, the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal, in view of prevailing rate of interest at the time of accident and that discretion need not be interfered. So, no ground for interference is made out. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed on merits, as well as, being time barred. ( K.C. Puri ) 3.5.2010 Judge chugh