FAO No. 1209 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1209 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.03.2010 Kavita alias Kulwinder Kaur and others ....Appellants Versus Gian Chand and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. M.B. Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.5. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) CM No. 5819-CII of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed and the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No. 1209 of 2009 This is claimants appeal, against the award dated 2.6.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar, on a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the question of quantum of compensation. The claimants claimed compensation, on account of death of Sunil Kumar in a motor vehicular accident on 22.1.2006. The pleaded case of the claimants was, that Karam Chand and Sunil Kumar were returning from Chhapar to village Govindpura (Yamuna Nagar) on a FAO No. 1209 of 2009 (O&M) -2- motorcycle bearing No. HR-02G-0142 driven by Karam Chand. The motorcycle met with an accident with a santro car bearing registration No. HR-50-0044, which was driven by Gian Chand, respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The accident was witnessed by Ripan and Rishi Pal. FIR No. 19 dated 22.1.2006, under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident and was said to be running an electrical repair shop with income of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month. The compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lac only) was claimed. The claim petition was contested by denying the factum of accident. It was pleaded, that accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and not that of respondent No.1. It was also the case, that in spite of the matter being reported to the police, the police showed its inability to lodge FIR against the motorcyclist. The General Insurance Company, also denied its liability to pay compensation on the plea, that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding, that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car No. HR-50-0044 by respondent No.1. Issue No.3 was decided against the Insurance Company by holding that driver of the offending vehicle had an effective and valid driving licence, and that no terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated. The liability was, therefore, fastened on all the FAO No. 1209 of 2009 (O&M) -3- respondents jointly and severally. Though, the appellants claimed income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month, but no evidence in support of the said income was led and, therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month. Thereafter, by deducting 1/3rd of the income for his personal use, assessed the dependency of the appellants at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month. The appellants were also granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards funeral charges and loss of consortium etc. The total compensation awarded came to Rs.3,94,000/- Rupees three lac and ninety four thousand only). The appellants were also granted interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. The compensation was also ordered to be apportioned between the claimants. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the award, on the ground, that keeping in view the age of the deceased, the multiplier applied was not correct. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was, that multiplier of 18 should have been applied instead of 16, as the age of the deceased was 28 years, and he had a bright future ahead. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the award, on the contention that the compensation as well as the multiplier applied is in accordance with law, as the multiplier in schedule is not statutory and is only guiding factor. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the FAO No. 1209 of 2009 (O&M) -4- learned counsel for the appellants. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the multiplier applied should have been 18. The other finding qua income, dependency etc. deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, finding on issue No.2-A is modified, and it is held, that the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.4,42,000/- (Rupees four lac and forty two thousand only), which is inclusive of the compensation awarded towards funeral charges and loss of consortium. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. Appeal disposed off. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 25, 2010 R.S.