IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O NO. 5275 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 22.12.2008 The New India Assurance Company ...Appellant versus Madhusmita Mishra and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. R. K. Bishamboo, Advocate, for the appellant. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This appeal by the New India Assurance Company Limited is directed against the award dated 03.09.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, whereby the respondent-claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.20,16,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Dr. Deepak Kumar Pant, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 06.10.2005. Dr. Deepak Kumar Pant was a Lecturer in the Department of Music and Dance, Kurukshetra Unversity, Kurukshetra. He was 47 years old and on the ill fated day, was driving his Maruti Car bearing registration No. HR-07-G-5859 at about 3:30 P.M when the offending truck, allegedly being driven F.A.O NO. 5275 OF 2008 -2- in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, struck against the car and completely smashed the same, resulting into the instant death of Dr. Deepak Kumar Pant. The respondent-claimants are the widow and two minor children of the deceased. While answering Issue No.1 in affirmative, the Tribunal has held that death of Dr. Deepak Kumar Pant was caused in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Hukam Chand (Respondent No.4) while driving truck No. HP-34-B-0966. There is no challenge to the said finding. There are two fold contentions on behalf of the appellant-company. Firstly, it is urged that the Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 12 when the deceased was 47 years old, as according to the appellant-company, the Tribunal ought not to have applied the multiplier beyond 8. It is also argued that while assessing the income of the deceased, deductions towards income tax have been over looked. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The deceased was a highly educated and talented person and was employed as a University Lecturer. As per the Salary Certificate placed on record, he used to draw the gross emoluments were Rs.20,942/- per month. His widow-respondent No.1 has categorically deposed on oath that her husband, besides salary, also used to earn additional income on account of F.A.O NO. 5275 OF 2008 -3- examination duties, payment of honorarium, conducting practical examinations and arranging professional singing shows as husband was a professional singer as well. This fact has been proved by bringing on record the audio cassettes of the deceased and certain magazines (Mark P-2 and P-3). No suggestion has been given to her in the cross examination that the additional income of Rs.10,000/- of the deceased besides the monthly salary as claimed by her, was excessive or exaggerated. Notwithstanding this un-rebutted evidence, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.21000/- only and after deducting 1/3rd towards his own personal expenses, has assessed the dependency of the respondent-claimants @ Rs.14000/- per month. The Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased, especially when he was a highly qualified extra- ordinary talented person. In these circumstances, the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased and/or consequential dependency of the claimant-respondents, warrants no interference by this Court. Adverting to the applicability of the multiplier, this Court can take notice of the fact that the age of retirement of the University teachers is not less than 60 years. In the normal circumstances, the deceased would have, even if it is assumed that there was no further promotion or increase in the salary, continued to draw the same salary at least for more than 13 F.A.O NO. 5275 OF 2008 -4- years. As noticed earlier, the deceased was a professional singer. Even after retirement, he would have continued to earn handsomely. The Tribunal has, therefore, committed no error of law in applying the multiplier of 12. For the reasons mentioned above, no case to interfere with the impugned award is made out. Dismissed. DECEMBER 22, 2008 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE