C.M.No.2221 CII of 2009 and 1 FAO No. 645 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.2221 CII of 2009 and FAO No. 645 of 2009 Date of decision 24.4.2009. Ved Parkash and another ...... Applicant-appellants. versus Balwinder Singh & Others ...... Respondents. Present : Mr. M.K.Garg, Advocate for the applicant-appellants. L.N.MITTAL,J.(Oral) C.M.No.2221 CII of 2009 For reasons contained in the application, supported by affidavit, delay of 2166 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.645 of 2009. This is appeal by claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moga (in short – Claims Tribunal) vide impugned Award dated 1.10.2002. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. The accident took place on 19.4.2000. The claimants are unfortunate parents of the deceased-Rajiv Kumar, who was unmarried. His C.M.No.2221 CII of 2009 and 2 FAO No. 645 of 2009 age was 23 years at the time of accident. He was a student. His income in the year 2000 was taken to be Rs.1800/-p.m. by the Tribunal. After deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, dependency has been assessed to be as Rs.1200/- per month. Applying multiplier of 12, compensation of Rs.1,72,800/- was assessed. In addition thereto, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5000/- as funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that multiplier of 12 applied by the Tribunal is inadequate, keeping in view the age of the deceased being 23 years only. The contention, although apparently attractive on first blush, is devoid of merit. Learned counsel for the appellants states that age of appellant No.1 (father of the deceased) was 56 years. In the case of unmarried boy, age of the parents also has to be taken into consideration for determining multiplier. Keeping in view the age of the claimants being 56 years, the multiplier of 12 is also on higher side and cannot be said to be inadequate in any manner. In addition to the aforesaid, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12 for dependency of 2/3rd of the income of the deceased. However, keeping in view the age of the deceased (23 years), he would have got married in another 2 -3 years and then would have raised his own family and thereafter his contribution to the claimants would have decreased substantially. Consequently, dependency of 2/3rd of the income of the deceased could be considered for maximum 5-6 years and thereafter the dependency would have been 1/3rd of the income of the deceased and even if multiplier of 17 in all, as contended by learned counsel for the appellants, is C.M.No.2221 CII of 2009 and 3 FAO No. 645 of 2009 applied, compensation amount would come to less than that awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium, which could not be awarded because the deceased was unmarried. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is not inadequate or insufficient. The appeal is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ( L.N.MITTAL ) JUDGE April 24, 2009 sv