IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5240 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:12th September, 2011 Nirmal Kaur and others .......Appellants Versus Dr. Rohit Kapoor and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D.R.Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by the dependents of Harwinder Singh, who had lost his life in a vehicular accident that took place on 30.07.2009. The facts of the case in brief are as under:- On 30.07.2009 at about 11:30 am, Harwinder Singh, deceased was going to Adda Jaintipur from his house on foot FAO No. 5240 of 2010(O&M) accompanied by Baljinder Singh. When they were near dairy of Balkar Singh and moving at the side of the road, a car bearing Registration No. PB-02-AZ-883, driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner had struck against the deceased. He received multiple injuries, was taken to Dashmesh Hospital, where he died on the very same day. Police was informed and the case was registered. Claiming the deceased to be of 34 years of age, was having sound health and earning ` 15,000/- per month from agriculture and dairy farming, the claimants had sought ` 20 lacs as compensation on the ground that the deceased used to hand over his entire earnings to the appellants as they depended upon him. Written reply was filed by the respondents where they had denied the accident to have taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car in question by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3--National Insurance Company, had raised preliminary objections on several grounds. However, none of those grounds found favour with learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) and no appeal has been brought by respondent No. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Harwinder Singh died in a road-side accident on account of rash and negligent driving, caused by respondent No. 2 by driving car No. PB-02-AZ-8834 on 30.07.2009 in the area of Village Pakharpura? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive 2 FAO No. 5240 of 2010(O&M) compensation as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPR 4. Whether the petition is bed for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPR 5. Relief? After taking evidence of the parties, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of ` 3,80,000/- as compensation in favour of claimants. The Tribunal had allowed interest @6% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of institution of the claim petition till the realisation of the amount. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the claimants have brought this appeal. I have heard Shri B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants and Shri D.R.Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal took the income of the deceased at ` 3,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, determined the annual dependency at ` 24,000/- (2000 x 12) per annum and had adopted a multiplier of 15 which resulted in loss to the dependants at ` 3,60,000 (24,000 x 15). According to him, neither the deduction towards personal expenses is justified nor the multiplier is proper. He has submitted that the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses in this case should have been 1/4th, because the number of the dependants/claimants of the deceased are 5 and according to him, as he had died at the age of 34 years, the multiplier of 16 would 3 FAO No. 5240 of 2010(O&M) have to be adopted. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has failed to argue about the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses which is fixed in this case. He did not deny that the deduction towards personal expenses could be reduced to 1/4th in appropriate cases. He has also conceded at the bar that the multiplier laid down by Schedule II appended to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in case of death of a person in the age group of 30 to 35 years is 16. The deduction towards personal expenses applied to the income of the deceased to assess the dependency of the claimants can vary if the number of claimants is large as in is in the case in hand. The number of claimants are five here out of whom Nirmal Kaur-appellant No. 1 is the widow and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are the minor sons and appellant No. 5 is the widowed mother of the deceased. In the presence of five claimants, the deceased could not be believed to have been spending 1/3rd of his income on himself. Therefore, the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses in this case should have been 1/4th and by applying the same, the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to ` 2,250/-. When multiplied with 12, this dependency comes to ` 27,000/- per annum. The multiplier laid down by the above mentioned Schedule in case of death of a person in the age group of 30 to 35 years is 16. I find no reason to have been given by the Tribunal for reducing the multiplier from 16 to15. So the appropriate multiplier for assessing the compensation in this case should have been 16. Taking 4 FAO No. 5240 of 2010(O&M) this as multiplier, multiplying the dependency of `. 27000 per annum with 16, the compensation payable to the claimants comes to `4,32,000/-. Adding to it a sum of ` 10,000 each towards loss of consortium as also loss to estate and funeral expenses as allowed by the Tribunal, the compensation to which the claimants are entitled in this case comes out at ` 4,52,000/-. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from ` 3,80,000/- to ` 4,52,000/-. I however, find no reason to interfere with the rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. [VIJENDER SINGH MALIK] JUDGE 12th September, 2011 Shivani Kaushik 5