FAO No. 5583 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 27666-67-CII of 2009 and F.A.O. No. 5583 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.4.2010 Roopam Kumari .. Appellant v. Gurcharan Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. R. P. Dudeja, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The claimant is in appeal before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation on account of the death of her father in a motor vehicular accident. Along with the appeal, an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 4468 days in filing the appeal and another application has been filed for seeking condonation of delay of 470 days in re-filing. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 30.7.1993, deceased-Amar Mandal was going towards Bahalgarh on his cycle. A truck bearing registration No. JK-02-4675 came from Delhi side, being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 and struck against the cycle of Amar Mandal from behind. As a result of the accident, Amar Mandal received injuries and ultimately died. His widow, two daughters and one son filed claim petition before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short, `the Tribunal). Vide impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Out of the said amount, Rs. 20,000/- each were directed to be shared by three children and the balance amount was directed to be paid to the widow of the deceased. It is against this award that the appellant, one of the daughters of the deceased, is before this Court. In support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submitted that the appellant was a minor when the claim petition was filed. She came to know about non-filing of appeal only when she became major and withdrew the amount kept in FDR in her name. The mother of the appellant did not file appeal against the award of the FAO No. 5583 of 2009 [2] Tribunal seeking further enhancement of compensation. She submitted that considering the aforesaid fact, when the mother of the applicant-appellant, who represented her at that time, had not been able to take care of the interest of the minor properly, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned and she be heard on merits. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. There cannot be a best well wisher of a child than her mother. A perusal of the impugned award shows that it was not only the applicant-appellant, who was minor, rather her minor brother and sister were also the claimants before the Tribunal. All three of them were represented by their widowed mother. Nothing has been pointed out to show as to whether other brother and sister of the applicant-appellant also filed appeal challenging the impugned award after they became major. The delay in filing the appeal is huge. It is not in dispute that the applicant-appellant became major on 20.1.2007, whereas the appeal in this court was filed on 25.4.2008, i.e., more than one year after she attained majority. Still further, even if the merits of the case are considered, in my opinion, no case for further enhancement can possibly be made out. The deceased in the present case was allegedly working in Hilton Factory and earning salary of Rs. 1,600/- per month, besides Rs. 600/- per month as over-time, but in her statement, while appearing as PW1, widow of the deceased stated that her husband was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month. There was no documentary evidence produced on record showing the salary/income of the deceased. It came on record in the form of cross-examination of mother of the applicant-appellant as PW1 that the deceased was working as a casual labourer. On that basis, his salary was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Considering the number of dependents on him, a cut of 1/3rd was applied, assessing the dependency at Rs. 8,000/- per annum and considering the age of the deceased at 30 years, multiplier of 16 was applied which, in my opinion, does not call for any interference. For the reasons mentioned above, the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing are dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.4.2010 mk