F.A.O. No.2378 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** F.A.O. No.2378 of 2008 Date of Decision:30.10.2008 Smt. Rajwanti and others .....Appellants Vs. Harnek Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the appellants. **** HARBANS LAL, J. By filing this appeal, the claimants- appellants have sought enhancement of the amount awarded as compensation on account of the death of Sukhdev Singh by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad vide his award dated 20.9.2007. The brief facts which led to the filing of the claim petition are that on 27.6.2005 at about 1:40 P.M., the deceased Sukhdev Singh along with Kala was proceeding to the field of Roshan Lal on the tractor of Roshan Lal bearing registration No.HR-23B-1940 driven by Shish Pal at a moderate speed with due care and caution. When the tractor neared the Truck Union, Kullan on Kullan-Tohana road, meanwhile a bus bearing registration No.PB11P-7406 driven by Harnek Singh, respondent rashly and negligently came from the opposite side. The driver wrongly overtook the car which was also coming from the front side, by coming on the kacha berm of the left side of the road. The bus struck against the tractor trolley as a result of which Sukhdev Singh sustained multiple injuries. He succumbed to the injuries. Shish Pal lodged FIR. This claim petition was resisted by F.A.O. No.2378 of 2008 -2- the respondents. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Sukhdev Singh died in a motor vehicular accident on 27-6-2005 which took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No.PB11P/7406 by Harnek Singh (respondent No.1) which was owned by General Manager, Pepsu road Transport Corporation, Chandigarh (respondent No.2). OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so how much? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners have concealed the material facts, if so to what effect? OPR 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. If so, to what effect? OPR 5. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,66,896/-. Feeling that this amount is on the lower side, the claimants- appellants have preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Tribunal with due care and circumspection. Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants urged with a good deal of force that the evidence of the claimant, PW2 and PW3 has been erroneously ignored for the reason that as per the same, the income of the deceased was Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month. F.A.O. No.2378 of 2008 -3- He further argued that during these days even a labourer earns Rs.3,300/- per month. It is further pointed out that the multiplier applied by the Tribnal is only 13 though it should have been 15 at least and thus in these premises the compensation is liable to be enhanced. I have well considered these submissions. The claimants- appellants have not adduced any evidence to the effect that the income of the deceased ranged between Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month. As is borne out from the evidence, he used to ply camel Rehri in Anaj Mandi. He was 45 years of age at the time of his death. The learned Tribunal has applied 13 as multiplier, which is obviously quite just and reasonable. In view of these circumstances, to my mind, prima-facie no case is made out for enhancement of compensation. Sequelly, this appeal is dismissed in limine. October 30, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No