FAO No. 2151 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2151 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.01.2010 Mukesh Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Manoj Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Harender Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This appeal by the claimants is directed against the award dated 21.10.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, allowing an application moved by the appellants, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case set up by the appellants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was, that on 7.7.2006, deceased-Naresh Kumar was coming from Hisar to Kaithal on his motorcycle No. HR- 32A-7496. At about 4.30 p.m. when he reached in the area of village Talvandi Rana 5 KM ahead of Hisar, he was hit by car No. HR-20L- 0819, being driven by respondent No.1 Manoj Kumar, in a fast speed, in rash and negligent manner. The driver of the car is said to have been driving the car on the wrong side, which hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the motorcycle of the deceased fell into the FAO No. 2151 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ditches and he suffered multiple injuries on his right hand, right feet and other parts of the body. The motorcycle was completely damaged. Naresh Kumar was shifted to Arora Ortho Hospital, Hisar, by Pardeep S/o Sh. Dhoop Singh and thereafter was shifted to CMC Hospital, Hisar. FIR was also registered against the offending driver. The deceased ultimately died on 19.7.2006. Thus, compensation on account of death was claimed by the claimants. The claim petition was contested. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal recorded a positive finding, that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, which resulted in death of Naresh Kumar. The driver was held to be holding a valid licence. The deceased was working as Field Officer and on the basis of salary certificates produced, the learned Tribunal held, that the carry home salary of the deceased was Rs.4,001/- (Rupees four thousand only) per month, and by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, dependency of the claimants was taken to be Rs.2,668/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred and sixty eight only) per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 was applied and, thus, it was held that the claimants were entitled to Rs.5,44,272/- (Rupees five lac forty four thousand two hundred and seventy two only). The appellants were also granted funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards loss of consortium. As the claimants were also able to prove on record that a sum of Rs.5,80,095/- (Rupees five lac eighty thousand and ninety five FAO No. 2151 of 2009 (O&M) -3- only) were spent on treatment, it was also awarded. Thus, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.11,33,831/- (Rupees eleven lac thirty three thousand eight hundred and thirty one only) along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the impugned award on the plea, that the compensation awarded is on the lower side, as the future prospects of the deceased have not been taken into consideration. It is also the case, that transportation charges have not been paid. However, no ground is made out to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Keeping in view the income, the dependency was rightly calculated, and the multiplier applied was also right keeping in view the age. The appellants have also been granted compensation towards medical expenses. However, there is no evidence with regard to the transportation, therefore, it could not be said that the appellants were also entitled to transportation charges for shifting the deceased to hospital, as is claimed. The compensation being as per settled law does not call for any interference in this appeal, as there is no scope for further increase. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 20, 2010 R.S.