FAO No.177 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.177 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : September 15, 2009 Kela Devi and others ... Appellants VERSUS Firoz Khan and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Anurag Chopra, Advocate for the appellants. Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent - National Insurance Company A.N.JINDAL, J.- On the death of Dharam Pal s/o Jagira Ram in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 30.4.2005, the claimants - appellants (herein referred as the `claimants') being his widow, three daughters, two sons and the mother sought compensation by way of claim petition, which was accepted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (herein referred as `the Tribunal') on 6.10.2008 and the claimants were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.12,05,920/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till realisation. However, dissatisfied with the said compensation, the claimants have sought enhancement by way of the present appeal. The Tribunal while determining the age of the deceased as 42 yeas and taking his salary as Constable in the Police Department at Rs.9084/- per month awarded compensation as aforesaid. FAO No.177 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] Counsel for the claimants has contended that neither the Tribunal assessed his self-dependency correctly, nor applied the proper multiplier. Heard. There is no denying a fact that the deceased was a constable in the Police Department. His date of birth as established on the record is 22.3.1963, as such, on the date of accident, he was more than 42 years old. The claimants who were exclusively dependent upon the deceased are seven in number. The deceased was drawing salary of Rs.9084/- per month and as per Haryana Police norms, he had been drawing 13 salaries in a calendar year of 12 months. Thus, his annual income happened to be Rs.1,18,092/-. As regards the multiplier, it was observed by the Apex Court in case Smt.Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR(Civil) 77 that in case of accidental death of a person at the age of 42 years, multiplier of 14 should be applied, but the Tribunal in the present case committed an error, while applying the multiplier of 15. So far as the deduction towards self-dependency of the deceased, in case of more than four persons, is concerned, it should be assessed at 1/4th, whereas, the Tribunal fell in error while making usual deduction of 1/3rd out of his income in the present case. Thus, the compensation needs to be calculated as under:- Monthly income = Rs.9084/- Self-dependency = 9084/4 = Rs.2271/- Net monthly dependency= 9084-2271 = Rs.6813/- Annual dependency = 6813x13 = Rs.88569/- Dependency after applying multiplier of 14 = 81756x14 = Rs.12,39,966/- FAO No.177 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] The expenses awarded on account of last rights were assessed at Rs.10,000/- and consortium to the widow of the deceased was assessed at Rs.15,000/-, which do not need interference. I do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the appellants that there should have been 30% increase in the income of the deceased as he was 42 years old at the time of his death. No evidence has been led as to whether he had passed any promotional examination, so as to enter into the avenue of promotion. Moreover, the Tribunal should also take into consideration the uncertainties, imponderables and other unforeseen exigencies of life, which could shorten the life of a person. The Court is also to take into consideration the decrease in income due to his resignation, suspension, termination or voluntary/ pre-mature retirement due to natural calamities. As such, I am not convinced to hold that there should have been 30% prospective increase in the salary of the deceased, rather, after his retirement at the age of 58 years, there would have been a cut of ½ in his monthly income. As such, while keeping in view the affect of aforesaid cumulative circumstances, I do not deem it appropriate that 30% increase should be assessed in the income. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed and the claimants are held entitled to Rs.12,64,966/- (12,39,966/-+10,000+15000) along with interest as per the impugned award. No order as to costs. September 15, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE