FAO No.3738 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.3738 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : December 14, 2009 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited ... Appellant VERSUS Vinod Rani and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for respondent – claimant. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Challenge is to the award dated 13.3.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (herein referred as `the Tribunal'), awarding a sum of Rs.12,10,000/- to the claimants – respondents No.1 and 2 (herein referred as `the claimants') on account of the death of their son Sunil Kataria (herein referred as `the deceased'), aged 21 years, a BDS IIIrd year student. Brief resume of facts is that on 6.4.2007, the deceased was going to Sehjadpur on motor cycle bearing Reg.No.HR04B-2837, being driven by him at a moderate speed on the left side of the road, followed by Sandeep Kumar (PW1) on a separate motor cycle. At about 9.30 AM, FAO No.3738 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] when they reached in the area of Sehjadpur near the brick-kiln, a tractor Sonalika bearing Engine No.4095F62I98545 and Chasis No.0600ZZ97786/3 being driven by respondent No.1 Naresh Kumar (herein referred as respondent No.1.) rashly and negligently, violating the traffic rules, came from the opposite side and hit the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which he received serious multiple injuries. He was shifted to the Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries on his way. FIR No.28 was lodged on the same day at Police Station Sehjadpur. As an aftermath of the accident, the claimants filed the claim petition, which was contested by the appellant Insurance Company as well as the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respondent Nos.3 and 4, respectively. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing Engine No.4095F62I98545 and Chasis No.0609ZZ97786/3 by respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.2 has willfully violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so to what effect? OPR 4. Relief.” All the parties led their evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal FAO No.3738 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] passed the impugned award, as referred to above. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant- Insurance Company. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The award has been challenged on two counts; firstly that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the higher side at Rs.15,000/- per month, and, secondly that the multiplier has not been correctly applied. Heard. I find no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel. So far as the first contention is concerned, it needs notice that the deceased was a student of IIIrd academic year of BDS Course in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College, affiliated to Kurukshetra University, which shows that had he been alive, he would have become a doctor after completion of the Course. It is also seen that with the advancement of medical and dental sciences, people have become very health conscious and prefer to maintain their health than money. In such a scenario, the income of the deceased would not have been less than Rs.15,000/- per month. Even a Government doctor derives at least Rs.30,000/- as salary. As such, the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal, is quite reasonable. So far as the multiplier aspect is concerned, the deceased was a bachelor of 22 years, while his parents, the claimants are aged about 53 years and 50 years. The appellant Insurance Company has relied upon the decisions in case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and others, 2006(2) PLR 329, wherein, the age of the claimants – parents was 45 & 50 years and multiplier of 12 was applied, and, in case Ram Sarup and others vs. Om Parkash and others, 2008(1) PLR 461, wherein, FAO No.3738 of 2009(O&M) [ 4 ] the father was aged 60 years, while the mother was aged 55 years, and in such situation, multiplier of `7' was applied. Taking stock of the decision, cited by the appellant Insurance Company, the multiplier of `10' as applied by the Tribunal in the instant case, where the father is aged 53 years, while the mother is below 50 years, cannot be said to be on the higher side. Thus, the multiplier aspect also need not be disturbed. No other point was raised. No merit. Dismissed. December 14, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE