IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.687/2007 Date of Decision: 26.5.2009. Jai Dayal and another ..........Appellants Versus Smt.Kanta Devi and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.KK Aggarwal,Senior Advocate with Mr.Kapil Aggarwal,Advocate and Mr.RK Agnihotri,Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Ravinder Arora,Advocate for Insurance Company. None for claimants-respondents. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). This order, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, will dispose of FAO Nos.687 to 690 of 2007, as all these four appeals arise out of common award dated 14.12.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Rewari (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby following four claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against which present appeals, as depicted against each claim petition, were allowed:- Sr.No. Claim Petition NO. FAO No. Pertaining to 1 181 RT of 2002/2005 687/2007 Death of Chitwan son of Ghamandi Lal 2 173 RT of 2003/2005 688/2007 Injury case of Manohar Lal son of Sultan Singh 3 180 RT of 2003/2005 689/2007 Injury case of Ajit Singh son of Luxman Singh FAO No.687/2007 2 Sr.No. Claim Petition NO. FAO No. Pertaining to 4 178 RT of 2003/2005 690/2007 Injury case of Naveen Kumar son of Lakhmi Chand. Learned counsel for the appellants(owner and driver of offending vehicle-Tata 407 no.HR-39-2162) at the very outset fairly conceded that he does not challenge the aforesaid common award as regards the factum of accident and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. He restricts his challenge only to the quantum of compensation awarded in the aforesaid four claim petitions. Despite service, at the time of arguments, no one put in appearance on behalf of the claimants-respondents. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Insurance Company. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid claim petitions is on higher side. As already noticed above, since the factum of accident and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not disputed, I with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, proceed to examine the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in each case. FAO No.687/2009. As already noticed above, this appeal arises out of Claim petition no.181 RT of 2002/2005 under Section 166 of the Act filed by the parents and minor brother and sister of deceased Chitwan. The deceased, at the time of his death was aged about 17-18 years and a student of B.A.Ist year. Though, it was alleged that he was running hardware shop and had monthly income of FAO No.687/2007 3 Rs.4500/-, yet the learned Tribunal guided by the IInd Schedule provided under the Act, assessed monthly loss of dependency @ Rs.1,250/- and keeping in view his age applied the multiplier of 13. Thus, the compensation awarded was Rs.1250 x12x13=1,95,000/-. In addition to that the claimants were awarded another sum of Rs.3500/- on account of expenses on transportation and last rites. In my opinion, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not require interference by this Court. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Devi and another v. Musafir Paswan and another, where the deceased was boy aged 13, held that he being a non-earning person, a sum of Rs.15,000/- per annum must be taken as the income. Further, relying upon U.P. State Road Transport Corporation V. Trilok Chandra, 1996(ACJ 831(SC) their Lordships held that in order to ensure uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country, there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. Keeping in view the law laid down by their Lordships, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly dependency @ Rs.1250/-. Rather, I feel that the multiplier of 13 applied by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, but since claimants-respondents have not filed any appeal for enhancement of compensation, no relief can be granted. FAO No.688/2007. In this appeal, claimant Manohar Lal suffered multiple injuries including fracture of his right shoulder. FAO No.687/2007 4 As per disability certificate Ex.P45 produced by him he had suffered 15% physical disability on account of mild stiffness of his right shoulder and elbow and mild loss of stability. He was awarded a total compensation of Rs.54,700/- on various counts i.e. Rs.8000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.30,000/- for physical disability, Rs. 2000/- towards Attendant's charges, Rs.2000/- for diet, Rs.9700/- against actual medical bills produced by him, Rs.3000/- towards loss of income, treating him as unskilled labour, during the period he remained bed ridden and Rs.2000/- towards transportation charges against transportation bills amount to Rs.6000/- (Ex.P37 to P42). The compensation granted under various heads, as noticed above, is perfectly justified and need not be reduced. FAO No.689/2007. In this appeal, claimant Ajit Singh suffered multiple injuries including fracture of his clavicle. He did not produce any disability certificate, bills towards diet, transportation, attendant charges, and proof of loss of income. He was awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,500/- on various counts i.e. Rs.6000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs. 2000/- towards Attendant's charges, Rs.2000/- for diet, Rs.2000/- for transportation expenses, Rs.500/- towards costs of medicines against bills of Rs.435/- and Rs.6000/- towards loss of income, treating him as unskilled labour, for not attending his work at least for two months. In my opinion, the compensation awarded under various heads in this case also , is perfectly justified and need not be reduced. FAO No.690/2007. In this appeal, claimant Naveen suffered multiple injuries including FAO No.687/2007 5 fracture of his left leg and rib. This claimant also did not produce any disability certificate, bills towards diet, transportation, attendant charges, and proof of loss of income. He was awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,230/- on various counts i.e. Rs.6000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs. 2000/- towards Attendant's charges, Rs.2000/- for diet, Rs.2000/- for transportation expenses, Rs.1230/- towards costs of medicines against bills of Rs.1230/- and Rs.6000/- towards loss of income, treating him as unskilled labour, for not attending his work at least for two months. In my opinion, the compensation awarded under various heads in this case is again perfectly justified and needs no reduction. Accordingly,finding no merit in these appeals, the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. 26.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge