HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU CIMA No. 37/2006 Date of Decision:22.12.2008 Karam Chand & Ors. Vs. U.O.I & Ors. Coram: Mr. Justice J.P.Singh, Judge. Appearing counsel: For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.L.Ravo, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Sharma, CGSC. i) Whether to be reported in Press/Journal/Media : Yes/No ii) Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal : Yes/No Ramesh Chand, a Constable, in Border Security Force, died because of the injuries he had received while travelling in appellants’ Vehicle Gypsy No. PCR-9694 which had been rashly and negligently driven by its driver. His parents, two sisters and a brother filed Claim Petition No. 286 claiming an amount of Rs.19 lacs as compensation for his death before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. Vide its award of October 31, 2005 the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,13,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have approached this Court in appeal seeking modification of the award and enhancement of compensation. 2 Appellants’ learned counsel submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate as the Tribunal had erroneously scaled down the prescribed multiplier while assessing compensation payable to the appellants. Mr. Ajay Sharma, CGSC, on the other hand, justified the award of the Tribunal saying that the amount awarded to the appellants- claimants was just compensation in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. After going through the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact determining the dependency of the family on the income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.2,068/-. The annual dependency has been worked out at Rs.24,816/-. While assessing compensation payable to the appellants- claimants, the Tribunal has selected 8 as against 11, which is prescribed multiplier for the age group of persons above 50 years, but not exceeding 55 years. This had been done by the Tribunal taking the age of the mother of the deceased as 53 years. The compensation assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,13,400/- does not appear to be the just compensation in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in that, the amount, if kept in a fixed deposit, would not yield by way of interest so much of the amount which the deceased had been found to be contributing for the sustenance of his family. 3 In order to recompense the appellants for the death of their bread-winner, they are required to be paid such amount by way of compensation interest component whereof per month may be near about the same amount which the deceased had been spending on the family, had the amount been kept in a fixed deposit. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the appropriate multiplier for assessing the amount of compensation for the appellants should be 10 because the amount thus calculated by way of compensation would come to Rs. 2, 78,160/- which includes an amount of Rs. 15000/- for love and affection and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus calculated, the amount of compensation which is required to be paid to the appellants for the death of Ramesh Chand would come to an amount of Rs.2,78,160/-. In view of the above discussion, this appeal, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed modifying the award of the Tribunal to be an award for an amount of Rs.2,78,160/- along with interest allowed by the Tribunal. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain unaltered. Respondents to satisfy the award within four weeks. ( J. P. Singh ) Judge Jammu 22.12.2008 Anil Raina, SECY