In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 2010 of 2009 Date of decision: December 24, 2009 Phoolwati and others .. Appellants Vs. Surinder and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the Insurance Company. A.N. Jindal, J Vide award dated 7.8.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (herein referred as 'the Tribunal'), Phoolwati etc. claimants-appellants (herein referred as 'the claimants') were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,09,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of the death of Constable Kishan Kumar, aged about 40 years in a motor vehicular accident. The respondents have neither challenged the negligence nor their liability to pay the compensation, however, in their plea regarding enhancement of compensation, the main attack made by the claimants is that Kishan Kumar deceased was working as Constable in the Haryana Police and was drawing salary to the tune of Rs.7000/- and his salary was likely to increase with the passage of time and on recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission. The Tribunal has not calculated the dependency by applying the appropriate multiplier. It has been submitted in the grounds of appeal that the Tribunal took note of the salary which he was drawing at that time, but the anticipated enhancement in the salary is not the proper criteria for assessing the compensation. Having perused the record as well as hearing the counsel for the respondent, it is observed that the salary of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs.7023/-. No document, has been brought to my notice in order to show as to at what rate his salary was likely to enhance. In the F.A.O. No. 2010 of 2009 -2- *** absence of any document, this court is unable to reach the conclusion as to what was anticipated salary of the deceased, as such, the Tribunal had no option but to consider his income as Rs.7023/- per month. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income which he may have been contributing to maintain himself. As regards the anticipated enhancement in the salary, it may be observed that the claimant Phoolwati must be drawing family pension on the death of Kishan Kumar. As such, the family pension also could be treated as an addition to the income on account of promotion, therefore, the family pension could be adjusted against the anticipated enhanced salary which he may have received if he was likely to be promoted at the later stage. It would also be appropriate to further add that it was not always necessary that the deceased would have been promoted. He could have set back to his life or promotion for many natural causes or exigencies and his life could be cut short for other natural reasons. The court is also to take note of the amount to be paid in lump sum to the claimants which could incur interest. As such, taking the present case from all the angles, it appears that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is quite adequate, fair and reasonable warranting no interference by this Court. Dismissed. December 24, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge