FAO No. 193 of 1988 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 193 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.2.2010 The State of Punjab and another ... Appellants vs Smt. Swaran Kaur and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Palvinder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for claimant/respondent no. 1. Rajesh Bindal J. This appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against the award dated 11.6.1987 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) whereby a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- has been awarded to the claimant/respondent no. 1 to be paid by the appellants and respondent no. 2 jointly and severally. Briefly the facts are that on 14.4.1985, Upkar Singh (deceased) and his son Narinder Singh were returning on motorcycle to City Tarn Taran from the side of octroi post situated on Amritsar-Tarn Taran Road. At about 3.30 p.m., when they reached near the power house, a bus bearing no. PBF-7179, being driven by respondent no. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, struck against the motorcycle. As a result of impact, they fell down on the road. Upkar Singh got unconscious. He sustained multiple injuries on his person and was removed to Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar, where he died. Claim petition filed by the widow of deceased Upkar Singh was allowed. Compensation of Rs. 1,98,000/- was assessed, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the State. Learned State counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is quite short viz. application of multiplier and cut on account of personal expenses. The learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 FAO No. 193 of 1988 -2- which should have been 11 and 1/3rd cut should have been applied on account of dependency as against 1/4th, considering the age of the deceased as 55 years at the time of death, and that widow is only claimant left behind by the deceased. In support his contention, he relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair and requires no modification. The Tribunal has granted compensation after considering the facts and circumstances of the case 22 years ago and prays that the appeal filed by the State be dismissed. It was also submitted that he has no knowledge as to whether the claimant is alive or not as communications sent to her have not been responded by her. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) laid down certain guide-lines for the purpose of determination of compensation in the form of calculation of dependency and application of multiplier. The relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. xx xx xx 42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Kerala SRTC v. FAO No. 193 of 1988 -3- Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P.SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” In the present case the salary of the deceased was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,911/- which is not in dispute. The fact that only respondent widow was the claimant has also not been disputed. The only issue which requires consideration in the present case is the determination of dependency and application of multiplier. The deceased in the present case was 55 years of age and was survived by his widow. Under the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to apply cut of 1/3rd as there were only two members in the family and that too at the old age. Accordingly, a cut of ½ would be appropriate. Considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,911/- per month, the compensation has to be worked out at Rs. 955.50 per month i.e. Rs. 11,466/- per annum. After the age of 58 years, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,300/-. If 50% cut is applied thereon, the dependency will come out to Rs. 650/- per month i.e. Rs. 7,800/- per annum. As far as application of multiplier by the learned Tribunal as 15 at the age 55, in my opinion, the same is also not justified in view of Sarla Verma's case (supra) vide which at the age of 55, the multiplier of 11 was held to be justified. Accordingly, for the first three years the compensation would be Rs. 34,398/- and for the remaining eight years Rs. 62,400/-. The widow of the deceased is also granted Rs. 3,000/- as loss of consortium. The total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 99,798/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- and this court vide order dated 28.4.1988 stayed disbursement of 50% of the sum awarded meaning thereby that the claimant FAO No. 193 of 1988 -4- had been paid a sum of Rs. 99,000/-. She has been held entitled to Rs. 99,798/- as compensation and equivalent to this amount has already been paid to her. Accordingly, the award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation is reduced to Rs. 99,000/-, which already stands paid to her. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 8.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge