FAO No. 3558 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3558 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2011 Harbhinder Kaur and another ...Appellants Versus Karamjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JINTENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.SS Swaich, Advocate for the appellants Mr.SK Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(ORAL) CM No. 15620-CII of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. FAO No.3558 of 2010 The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded to them by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 8.9.2009 on account of death of Hardip Singh, son of appellant No.1. FAO No. 3558 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The brief facts of the case are that on 13.10.2007 at about 11.00 P.M., when Hardip Singh, driver of the truck bearing registration No. PB-23E-2955, was coming from Ludhiana side, his truck went out of order and met with an accident. In the said accident, he suffered multiple injuries and was rushed to DMC, Hospital Ludhiana. He remained admitted there and died on 2.11.2007. The claimants/appellants filed the claim petition, which was accepted by the learned Tribunal and awarded a sum of `2,54,100/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal has assessed the dependency of 1/3rd, which is inadequate and the same should be 2/3rd. Further contended that the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13, which is also on the lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to the claimants/appellants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. From the perusal of case file, it emerges that the age of the deceased was 19 years at the time of accident. He left behind his widowed mother aged 45 years and a minor brother. As per the guidelines framed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77., the multiplier should be 14, if the age of the dependents falls in the age group FAO No. 3558 of 2010 (O&M) 3 of 41-45 years. As regards the deductions towards the personal and living expenses is concerned, I feel that the same should be 1/3rd instead of 1/2 as in the instant case, the dependents are 2 in number. Considering the above factual position, it would be appropriate to deduct the 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. The monthly income of the deceased was assessed as `3200/-, which annually comes to ` 38,400/- After deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses and applying enhanced multiplier of 14, it comes to `358,400/-. The amount of compensation under the heads of funeral and loss of estate shall remain the same. Thus, the enhanced amount comes to `1,08,800/- (3,58,400-2,54,00/-), which shall be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, as the manner indicated in the impugned award. If the enhanced amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest @7 ½ % per annum. As the vehicle in question was insured, therefore, the insurance company will satisfy the decree at the first instance, and the respondent No.2 shall have the recovery rights of the enhanced amount from respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above. 7.9.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE