F.A.O.NO.1056 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO.1056 OF 2009 Date of decision:24th September, 2010 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through their Legal Officer, Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Chaita Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate, for Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 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 K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant. The accident had given place to the claim which was the result of the collision between the motor cyclist who died in the accident and the bus belonging to the appellant corporation. The Tribunal found the driver of the appellant as responsible for the accident and no material placed before this Court to assail such finding. If the liability is therefore, correctly cast for the negligence, the issue will stand for consideration only as regards quantum. F.A.O.NO.1056 OF 2009 2 2. The deceased was a young man of 22 years who was an Executive in a private company, drawing a salary of around Rs. 11,000/- per month. The claimants were parents who were 48 and 45 years old. The Tribunal took the dependency at Rs. 2,000/-, adopted a multiplier of 17 and determine the compensation. The contention of the learned counsel is that in the event of claimants being elder to the deceased himself and when the deceased was a bachelor, the choice of multiplier must be with reference to the age of the claimants and not with regard to the deceased. I am aware of the decisions that have found fault with the claim for compensation provided under Schedule II and particularly the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra(1996) 4 SCC 362. There have been several divergent issues and the law relating to this subject and the choice of multiplier and multiplicand have obtained certitude with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, which would advance a formula of deduction of 50% for bachelors and adoption of multiplier depending on the age of the person for a person who was aged between 21 to 25 years, the appropriate multiplier would be even 18. Even if 50% of the amount were to have been taken as the contribution to the family, the contribution must have taken as Rs. 5,000/-. However, the Tribunal has taken it as Rs. 2,000/- and arrived at a compensation. If at all, there is a scope for enhancement but never a scope to reduce the award F.A.O.NO.1056 OF 2009 3 already passed, I still do not undertake the exercise of enhancing compensation since the claimants themselves are not present before the Court and not represented through counsel. Their counsel is not present to argue the case. 3. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 24th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik