FAO No. 1141 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 1141 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.2.2010 Mrs. Daya Wanti .. Appellant v. Sukhwinder Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance Company. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The claimant is in appeal against the award dated 15.5.1992, whereby learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, `the Tribunal') awarded Rs. 63,360/- as compensation to the appellant on account of the death of her son. Briefly, the facts are that on 5.6.1990, Parminder Pal Constable was driving government Gypsy No. PCF-1602. At about 5.45 A.M., when the Gypsy reached near village Sidhwan Kalan, a truck bearing No. PBV-2545 came at a very high speed from the opposite side, which was being driven rashly and negligently and struck against the Gypsy. As a result of the accident, Constable -Parminder Pal sustained injuries and died. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessment of compensation on account of the death of the son of the appellant at the young age of 28 years is not just and fair. He was working as Constable with Punjab Police. He had a long career ahead. In spite of the fact that his monthly income was proved at Rs. 1,754/-, but still his dependency was considered only at 1/4th, i.e., Rs. 440/- per month or Rs. 5,280/- per annum and even the multiplier applied was merely 12. No amount was granted on account of loss of consortium, transportation or funeral expenses. Even if the deceased was not married, still grant of merely Rs. 440/- per month to the mother, who was dependent on her son, out of carry home salary of Rs. 1,754/- is quite on lower side and so the multiplier. FAO No. 1141 of 1992 [2] The dependency of the deceased is to be seen on the date of accident. It is merely on assumption that the deceased would have married and thereafter his expenses towards his own family would have been more than the contribution to the mother, as by that time his income would also have increased. A son can never refuse to maintain his mother. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that fair amount of compensation has been assessed by the Tribunal as payable to the mother. Though loss of a child cannot be measured in terms of money, but still there are certain set principles, on the basis of which amount of compensation is assessed. Considering the income of the deceased on the date of accident, his future prospects and the age of the mother (claimant), correct multiplier has been applied, which does not call for any interference. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The loss suffered by a mother on account of the death of her son in his young age cannot possibly be measured in terms of money. A child for his mother is invaluable. No mother will voluntarily part any of his child, may it be a male or female, whatever amount is offered. Presently there may be some exceptions where on account of poverty and hunger, some people may be forced to part with their children. Be that as it may, but as far as loss of life or injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident, the law provides for payment of compensation just to console the grieved party. Certain para-meters, i.e., age of the deceased; income of the deceased; number of dependents; future prospects etc. have been laid down for the purpose, in terms of which the compensation is assessed. These para-meters have been provided to see that there is uniformity as far as system of calculation of compensation is concerned and it is not at the whims and fencies of any of the person, who is involved in the process of determination of compensation. Under the Act, even Schedule has been provided for certain categories of claimants to determine the amount of compensation. In the present case, the deceased, who was 28 years of age at the time of death in a motor vehicular accident, was working as a Constable in Punjab Police. He was on official duty when the accident occurred. His income was proved at Rs. 1,754/- per month. It is not in dispute that he was unmarried at that time. His dependency towards mother was taken merely at Rs. 440/- per month, i.e., Rs. 5,280/- per annum, which is 25%, meaning thereby the learned Tribunal applied a cut of 75%. The age of the mother of the deceased was 48 years. In my opinion, at least about 1/3rd of the amount could be taken towards the contribution of the deceased for taking care of his mother. The same would come out to FAO No. 1141 of 1992 [3] approximately Rs. 7,000/- per annum, as against Rs. 5,280/- per annum. As far as application of multiplier is concerned, that, in my opinion, does not call for any interference considering the age of the mother/claimant. Considering the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the accident in the present case had taken place way back on 5.6.1990, in my opinion, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in lump sum shall be the reasonable amount of compensation payable to the appellant in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. It is further made clear that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 30,000/- , if not paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Insurance Company, shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order till realisation. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.2.2010 mk