FAO No. 1341 of 1991 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 1341 of 1991 Cross Objections No. 29-CII of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.1.2010 Smt. Kela alias Kela Devi and others .. Appellants v. Saminder Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 22.1.1991, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby on account of the death of Om Parkash, his widow and four minor children have been awarded compensation of Rs. 2,13,600/-. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident, which occurred on 14.5.1989. He was working as a Band Master. As against the claim of his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, the Tribunal assessed the same at Rs. 1,200/- per month, as there was no documentary evidence to support the same. Accordingly, the assessment of income by the Tribunal way back in the year 1989 cannot be said to be unreasonable. There were five dependents on the deceased, namely, the widow and four minor children. The Tribunal deducted merely 1/6th out of the income, as assessed, on account of his personal expenses and treated Rs. 1,000/- per month as his dependency. Considering his age and the age of the widow, multiplier of 25 was applied by the Tribunal to assess the amount of compensation at Rs. 2,13,600/-, which cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. A perusal of the file shows that cross objections have been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, namely, Saminder Singh and Malkiat Singh (owner and driver of the vehicle) with the plea that Insurance Company should be directed to pay the entire amount as its liability was unlimited. However, a perusal of the FAO No. 1341 of 1991 (O&M) [2] impugned award shows that liability of the Insurance Company has not been limited. For the amount of compensation assessed, all the respondents have been made liable jointly and severally. Accordingly, prima facie, the cross objections are misconceived. However, the learned counsel, who had filed the cross objections, has not appeared. The same are also dismissed in default. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.1.2010 mk