F.A.O NO.1848 OF 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O NO.1848 OF 1997 and Cross-obj. NO.14-CII of 2008 DECIDED ON : 22.04.2010 The New India Assurance Co. ...Appellant versus Dayawati and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. L. M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate, for the respondents. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is an appeal directed by New India Assurance Company against the award dated 26.07.1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, vide which the claim petition preferred by the widow and two minor children was accepted and the claimants were held entitle to claim Rs.3,14,200/-. The Tribunal took the income of deceased as Rs.2400/- per month. 1/3rd amount was deducted on account of personal expenses incurred by the deceased for maintaining himself. So, the dependency was taken as Rs.1600/- per month and the yearly dependency was taken as Rs.19,200/-. By F.A.O NO.1848 OF 1997 -2- applying the multiplier of 16, an amount of Rs.3,07,200/- was granted. Another sum of Rs.5000/- was allowed towards loss of consortium and Rs.2000/- was allowed on account of funeral expenses. In this manner, a sum of Rs.3,14,200/- was allowed. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal for dismissing the claim petition and in the alternative, challenging the quantum of compensation whereas the claimants have filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company has filed appeal in respect of quantum of compensation. However, learned counsel for the Insurance Company is fair enough to concede that application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has not been accepted by the Tribunal and as such, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is not competent in view of authority “National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Smt. Balvir Kaur and others” 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 706. So, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company stands dismissed. Now rebutting to the cross-objections preferred by the claimants, learned counsel for the cross-objector has submitted that claimants are four in number and according to authority “Smt.Sarla Verma & ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr.” 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the cut in respect of personal expenses should be 1/4th. F.A.O NO.1848 OF 1997 -3- It is further submitted that the income assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.2400/- per month, is on the lower side. The deceased was agriculturist and was running a dairy farm and the income cannot be taken less than Rs.3000/- per month. It is further contended that only an amount of Rs.5000/- has been allowed in respect of loss of consortium which should be at least Rs.15,000/-. The amount granted in respect of funeral expenses is also on the lower side and the same should be at least Rs.10,000/-. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the land and the buffaloes are there. The family members would have income from that source. It is further submitted that so far as Sarla Verma's case (supra) is concerned, that can be made applicable in future. So, it is submitted that the income has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case. In this case the accident has taken place on 12.04.1995 so the case has to be decided keeping in view the income of deceased in that year. The Tribunal has assessed the income as Rs.2400/- per month. In my view, there are no chances of increasing the income in the year 1995. So, the income assessed by the Tribunal is correct. So far as the amount regarding loss of consortium and funeral expenses is concerned, F.A.O NO.1848 OF 1997 -4- that is also to be assessed keeping in view the prevailing market condition of the year 1995. So that amount also does not call for any interference. However, the dependency in the present case should have been assessed after deducting 1/4th amount as the dependents were four in number. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that Sarla Verma's case (supra) is applicable in respect of cases in future is concerned, that argument cannot be accepted. The dependency has to be assessed by the Tribunal keeping in view the number of family members. Besides three appellants, there was one mother of the deceased and accordingly, there are four dependents on the income of the deceased. So, in these circumstances, the Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th amount on account of personal expenses. So, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.1800/- after deducting 1/4th amount. The yearly dependency comes to Rs.21,600/-. The multiplier has been correctly applied by the Tribunal. After applying the multiplier of 16, the amount comes to Rs.3,45,600/-. The Tribunal has granted another sum of Rs.5000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs.2000/- on account of funeral expenses. So, in this manner, the claimants are entitle to claim Rs.3,52,600/-. In this manner, a sum of Rs.38,400/- stands enhanced. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the appeal till its realisation. Out of the enhanced F.A.O NO.1848 OF 1997 -5- amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is ordered to be paid to the widow alone. The mother of the deceased is reported to have died. So, the remaining amount be paid to the remaining claimants in equal shares. However, the liability to pay the amount shall remain the same, as ordered by the Tribunal. Disposed of. APRIL 22, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE