FAO No.300 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.300 of 2009 Date of decision:26.03.2009 Darbara Singh and others .....Appellants versus M/s Bhullar Pyar Bus Service (Regd.) and others .....Respondents Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL , J This is appeal by claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide award dated 25.09.2008. The appellants filed claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) claiming compensation for the death of Harjit Kaur in a motor vehicular accident. The deceased was daughter-in-law of appellants No.1 and 2 and mother of minor appellants No.3 and 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. The deceased was housewife, aged 39 years. The learned Tribunal assessed the pecuniary value of the services rendered by the deceased as housewife to be Rs.2500/- per month i.e. Rs.30,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 and calculated the compensation to be FAO No.300 of 2009 -2- Rs.4,50,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2000/- as non-pecuniary damages. The compensation was awarded to minor appellants No.3 and 4 only by observing that appellants No.1 and 2 are not entitled to compensation because the deceased was not rendering any services to them. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the income of the deceased should have been assessed to be Rs.40,000/- per annum, which is the maximum amount permissible in a petition under Section 163A of the Act. However, in the absence of any evidence, the pecuniary value of household services being rendered by the deceased could favourably be taken to be Rs.3000/- per month instead of Rs.2500/- per month as determined by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has not deducted 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased although it was mandatory to do so in view of the Second Schedule to the Act which is applicable in a claim petition under Section 163 A of the Act. Consequently, if calculated in this manner, the compensation amount would come to much less than that awarded by the Tribunal. Even if multiplier of 16 is applied instead of multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal, even then the compensation amount would come to much less than that awarded by the Tribunal. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel FAO No.300 of 2009 -3- for the appellants still was not ready to withdraw the instant appeal, although the same is completely frivolous and meritless. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.5000/- to be deposited with Lawyers Welfare Fund of High Court Bar Association by appellant No.1. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 26.03.2009 A.Kaundal