FAO No.424 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.424 of 2005 Date of Decision : 08.09.2011 Smt. Kitab Kaur and others .......Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The appeal in hand has been preferred by the claimants- appellants, assailing the impugned Award dated 29.10.2004, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded on account of the death of Harbinder Singh, deceased, in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 8.5.2002. The claimants are the mother, widow, and two minor children of the deceased. 1 FAO No.424 of 2005 The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash or negligent driving of jeep bearing registration No.HR- 12A/3581 by Rajeev, respondent No.3? OPP. (2) Whether Harbinder Singh son of Shri Hawa Singh died as a result of injuries suffered in the accident, if so, to what amount of compensation, the applicant are entitled to? OPP. (3) Whether respondent No3 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR. (4) Relief. The claimants were awarded a sum of `4,10,000/- on account of the death of Harbinder Singh, deceased. The claimants preferred this appeal for modification and enhancement of the award of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the deduction made by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121. He further points out that there are four claimants and thus, the dependency should have been assessed to 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. It is further submitted that no compensation has been awarded under all conventional heads except against the funeral expenses, which is a meager amount of `2,000/-. No other point has been raised. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana has submitted that the awarded amount is just and adequate. He 2 FAO No.424 of 2005 further asserts that the multiplier of 17 has wrongly been applied and the same warrants reduction. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the record, it is made out that the claimants are four in number. Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the deduction should have been to the extent of 1/4th. Therefore, the deduction of 1/3rd as held by the learned Tribunal is assessed to 1/4th. However, the multiplier is not in consonance with the law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and a higher multiplier of 17 has been granted. Accordingly, the same is reduced from 17 to 16. The amount of `2,000/- has been granted towards the funeral expenses and no amount has been awarded towards other conventional heads, including the loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. This Court feels that the ends of justice would be met in case the amount of compensation is increased to `20,000/- under all conventional heads. The enhanced amount of `42,000/- shall be paid to the appellant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the payment of enhanced amount is not made within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date filing the present appeal till its realization. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed and the Award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 08.09.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 3