F.A.O.No.1109 of 1988 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.1109 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision : 9.9.2008 Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Dhali, Distt.Shimla. ....Appellant Versus Smt. Kokila Devi & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No.12. MAHESH GROVER,J.(Oral) This is an appeal by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra dated 15.6.1988. The Tribunal while determining the issue of negligence concluded that the appellant and the second vehicle i.e. truck No.DLL-7804, which was involved in the accident, were guilty of having contributed to the accident equally and therefore while determining the question of liability apportioned it equally amongst the appellant and the driver and owner of truck No.DLL-7804. Learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the fact that the driver of the appellant had filed a separate claim petition in which also the finding of contributory F.A.O.No.1109 of 1988 (O&M) -2- negligence was recorded. This finding was never challenged and the award pertaining to this is Ex.R1 which was relied upon by the Tribunal to record the finding of contributory negligence in the present case as well. Since the finding on the issue of contributory negligence has gone unchallenged, the only question that is to be determined in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of compensation that should be awarded to the respondent-claimants who are also cross- objectors having preferred Cross-Objection No.66-CII of 1989. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded to the respondent-claimants is excessive. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,445.40. He was working as an Assistant in the office of the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla and was aged 49 years. 1/3rd cut was applied on account of personal expenses and the dependency was assessed at Rs.900/- per month. A multiplier of 16 was applied to arrive at a figure of Rs.1,72,800/-. Learned counsel for the appellant specifically pleaded that the multiplier of 16, which has been applied, is excessive considering the age of the deceased. No other challenge was made to the quantum of compensation. In the cross-objections the claimants have prayed for a higher amount of compensation. I have perused the impugned award as also the record of the case. There is cogent evidence in the shape of record F.A.O.No.1109 of 1988 (O&M) -3- pertaining to salary of the deceased. So, there is no ambiguity in so far as the assessment of the income is concerned. However, the Tribunal has gone wrong in deducting 1/3rd of the income for personal expenses. The deceased was survived by his widow, three minor children and his mother. In this eventuality it would have been appropriate if the unit system had been resorted to. The family constituted of six members and therefore the value of each unit comes to Rs.240/- approximately. If one unit is to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency comes to Rs.1,205/- i.e. Rs.14,460/- per annum. The second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is the guiding factor for adopting a multiplier, lays down the correct multiplier as 13. Accordingly the multiplier of 13 is applied. The compensation in this manner works out to Rs.1,87,980/-. Nothing has been awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate and in the opinion of this Court Rs.20,000/- on both counts should be just and adequate. In this manner the compensation comes to Rs.2,07,980/-, which is rounded off to Rs.2,08,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimants/cross-objectors along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. The liability to satisfy the award shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. F.A.O.No.1109 of 1988 (O&M) -4- With the aforesaid modification in the award the appeal and the cross-objections are disposed of. 9.9.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss