IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.383 of 2004. Date of Decision: 7.4.2011. Smt.Kamla Devi and others … Appellants Versus. Shri Balbir Singh and others … Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Appellant(s): Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.L.K. Sehgal, counsel for R-1. Mr.Rakesh Raghuvanshi, counsel for R-4. Mr.Kush Sharma, counsel for R-5&6. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan dated 9.1.2003 whereby the learned Tribunal has assessed the total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.2,24,000/-. 2. Since no appeal has been filed by the owner or the driver, only two questions arise for decision in this case; firstly, whether the State of Haryana is liable to pay the compensation and secondly, whether the compensation is liable to be enhanced, if so, to what amount. 3. As far as the first question is concerned, Sh.Sunit Goel, learned counsel for the claimants submits that nothing has been recovered from the owner and driver and he further submits that the deceased was employed on daily-wage basis with the State of Haryana and his duty was to show red flag to the vehicle coming on the road and - 2 - during this process he met with an accident and therefore he submits that the State of Haryana should be held liable. 4. I am unable to accept this contention. The State of Haryana had no connection with the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased. In case the deceased was a workman the claimants had two options available to them. They could have either filed a petition under the Workmen’s compensation Act or filed a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Once they exercised their option and filed a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act they are governed by the said Act. Under the said Act it is only the owner, driver and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle which can be held responsible and the employer cannot be held responsible. Therefore, this contention is rejected. 5. As far as the second contention is concerned, it has come on record that the income of the deceased was Rs.2000/- per month. It also stands proved on record that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident. Following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and by this Court in Naina Thakur and others vs. Punjab women’s Welfare Colleges Board and others, FAO No.437 of 2004 decided on 17.9.2009, it is held that out of the income of Rs.2000/-, 1/3rd has to be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased which would work out to Rs.650/- per month. The balance of Rs.1350/- per month would be assessed to the dependency of the widow and the four minor children. As per Sarla Verma’s case appropriate multiplier would have been 16 and in case this multiplier is applied the compensation works out to - 3 - Rs.2,59,200/-. In addition thereto, the widow is entitled to Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and another sum of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded for bringing the body from Haryana to Kumarhatti. A further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded as conventional damages. Thus, the total award amount comes to Rs.2,89,200/-, which is rounded off to Rs.2,90,000/-. 6. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.2,24,000/- to Rs.2,90,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 27.2.1999 till payment/deposit of the amount. 7. Respondent No.1 was exonerated by the learned Tribunal. He is the registered owner of the vehicle. This Court in a number of cases following the judgment of the Apex Court has held that when the registered owner transfers the vehicle but does not inform the registering authority about the transfer, he is also liable to pay compensation alongwith transferee. Therefore, respondents No.1, 2 and 4 are all held directly and severally liable to pay the amount. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. April 7, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge.