F.A.O. No. 4187 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4187 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 21st,2011 Smt. Pinki and another .... Appellants Versus Karan Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Sharad Yadav, Advocate, for the Appellants. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 11.1.2010. The claim petition of the claimants filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) has been allowed and compensation in the sum of Rs.4,70,800/- has been allowed with costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of institution of petition till the date of realization of the amount. The claim of the appellants and respondent No.4, Smt. Sushila Devi, a co-claimant, is as under : On 27.3.2009, Vishnu (deceased) was going to his village F.A.O. No. 4187 of 2010 2 .. Jhund Sarai on his motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-26T- 7023. At about 2.00 PM, he was near his village. In the meanwhile, a TATA 407 bearing registration No. HR-14E-0635 came from the side of Pataudi. It was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It was brought to the wrong side of the road and had hit the motor cycle of the deceased and dragged it to some distance. The driver of the vehicle left the vehicle at the spot and escaped. Vishnu suffered multiple injuries and had died at the spot. Rajbir and others saw the accident. A case for an offence punishable under sections 279 and 304-A IPC was got registered vide FIR No. 39 dated 27.3.2009. Vishnu was earning Rs.15,000/- by doing computer job at his shop in village Jhund Sarai. Claiming themselves to be dependents of the deceased, the claim petition was brought seeking a sum of Rs.15.00 lacs as compensation. On notice, the respondents resisted the petition. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have denied the accident to have taken place due to negligence or rashness of respondent No.1. It is claimed that the accident took place due to the fault of the deceased himself. It is also claimed that the vehicle was insured at the time of accident with respondent No. 3 and so, respondent No. 3 would be liable to compensate the claimants. The Insurance Company, respondent no.3, has denied the very insurance of the vehicle with it for want of verification of insurance particulars. Respondent No.1 is denied to be holding a valid and effective driving license at the time F.A.O. No. 4187 of 2010 3 .. of accident. Respondent No. 2 is claimed to have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the accident in question was caused by respondent No.1 while driving vehicle bearing registration No.HR-14E-0635 in a rash and negligent manner resulting into death of Vishu, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation and if so to what extent and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 3 is not liable to make payment of any compensation on account of alleged violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy?OPR (3) 4. Relief. Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.4,70,800/- to the claimants vide the impugned award. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimants have brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Sharad Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Gopal Mittal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased had been a graduate and had done certificate course in computer. According to him, the income assessed by learned Tribunal for him at Rs.3,600/- per month is not on the correct side. F.A.O. No. 4187 of 2010 4 .. According to him the multiplier of 16, adopted by the Tribunal for assessing compensation in this case, is also not correct. Referring me to the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, it is contended that the multiplier of 17 is applicable to this case. He has submitted that the amount awarded for loss of consortium, loss of estate and expenses on funeral and transportation at Rs.10,000/- is also less and it should be at least Rs.20,000/- as has been allowed in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that there is no proof of income of the deceased in this case. According to him, mere possession of certificate of computer is no proof of income of the deceased being above Rs.3,600/- per month. He has further submitted that the income assessed at Rs.3,600/- is, therefore, correct and compensation assessed is also sufficient and adequate and is not liable to be interfered with. The accident took place on 27.3.2009. The income of an unskilled labourer, now a days, is above Rs.3,600/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased has been a graduate and had done the computer course. Exhibits P8 and P9 were before the Tribunal to prove these facts. In these circumstances, the Tribunal did not assess the income of the deceased correctly. I take this income at Rs.4,200/- per month and applying a cut of 1/3rd to the same, find Rs.2,800/- as monthly dependency of the claimants. Multiplying it F.A.O. No. 4187 of 2010 5 .. with 12, Rs.33,600/- is found as the annual dependency of the claimants. Hon`ble Supreme Court has laid down that the multiplier of 17 is to be applied to a case, where the death has occurred in the age group of 26 to 30 years. The deceased in the case before me was 29 years of age at the time of accident and therefore, multiplier applicable to this case is of 17. Multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.33,600/- with 17, a sum of Rs.5,71,200/- is found as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Vishnu. As laid down in paragraph No. 26 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case (supra), a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is to be allowed as compensation for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral and transportation expenses. Consequently, the claimants are found entitled to Rs.5,91,200/- as compensation on the death of Vishnu in the aforesaid accident. The amount of compensation shall be payable with interest as also as per the other terms mentioned by the Tribunal in paragraph 20 of the award. The claimants shall share the amount in the ratio, in which the amount awarded by the Tribunal was ordered to be shared by them. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 21st, 2011 som