FAO No. 24 of 1989 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 24 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.5.2010 Gurdev Kaur (deceased) through LR and another ... Appellants vs Baldev Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. V. K. Kataria, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate, for the Insurance company. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 6.10.1988 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). Briefly the facts as stated in the award of the learned Tribunal are that on 17.10.1987 at about 8.15 a.m., Gurcharan Singh was standing in front of his house, which was on the road side. When Nihal Singh (since deceased) was coming to the house of Gurcharan Singh, on foot on left side of the road, a bus bearing no. PBF-101 of Sumundary Highways, driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from Ferozepur side, and struck against him. As a result of this, he died at the spot. FIR was lodged against the driver of the bus. As the claimants were fully dependent on Nihal Singh (deceased), they filed claim petition, which was allowed. Still dissatisfied with the award of the learned Tribunal, the claimants filed appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3, however, as the owner could not produce the insurance policy during the trial, the insurance company was absolved from satisfying the award. Now the cover note has been traced out and prayer was that the insurance company be directed to pay the compensation to the claimant. The deceased was 55 years of age at the time of death. According to him, the dependency assessed at Rs. 200/- per month is not just and fair. He was earning Rs. 500/- per month and the cut applied by the learned Tribunal on account of personal expenses is on higher side. It was also submitted that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is on lower side which should be 11 instead of 8. In support of his claim, he cites judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla FAO No. 24 of 1989 -2- Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company submitted that on checking the record, it was found that the offending vehicle bearing no. PBF-101 was not insured with the insurance company. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. Admittedly, the insurance company was not party before the Tribunal. The cover note placed on record now by the counsel for the appellants/claimants was got verified from the insurance company. The insurance company denied the vehicle being insured with it by filing affidavit of Shri S. L. Rekhi, Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh. Since the insurance company denied the vehicle being insured with it and that the same has been placed on record by the claimant at this stage, the prayer of the claimant to direct the insurance company to satisfy the award cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the prayer is rejected. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the income of the deceased assessed at Rs. 500/- per month by the learned Tribunal is not disputed. At the time of death, the deceased left behind the widow and the minor son. The cut applied by the Tribunal on account of personal expenses of Nihal Singh (since deceased) is on higher side. The Tribunal should have applied 50% cut instead of 60%. Accordingly, after applying cut of 50%, the dependency of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 250/-. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) laid down certain guide-lines for the purpose of calculation of compensation in the form of determination of dependency and application of multiplier. The relevant paragraph thereof are extracted below: “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P.SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” FAO No. 24 of 1989 -3- The deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of death. Considering his age, the multiplier of 11 has to be applied by the Tribunal. After applying 50% cut at Rs. 500/-, the dependency would come out to Rs. 250/- per month. The annual dependency would come out to Rs. 3,000/- and after applying multiplier of 11, the amount of compensation payable to the appellant would come out to Rs. 33,000/-. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent mentioned above. The additional amount of compensation determined by this Court shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 10.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge