1 FAO NO. 3777 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 3777 of 2010 Date of order: 19.09.2011 Rajbir Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus Jeet Ram and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for the appellants. None for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.3. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by claimants for enhancement of compensation, which they claimed under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short 'the Act') on the death of Goverdhan in a road side accident that took place on 10.04.2007. The appeal is directed against the award dated 25.08.2009 passed learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide which a sum of Rs.1,50,040/- has been awarded as compensation. The case of the claimants is as under:- Goverdhan, deceased was sleeping outside show room no. 184, Sector 5, Panchkula, quite close to his other family members. At that time, son of the deceased was talking to his friends. There was 55' wide footpath in front of the show room and thereafter there was parking area, which was 2 FAO NO. 3777 of 2010 also wide enough. Jeet Ram @ Mithlesh, respondent no.1 came there driving jeep bearing registration No.HR-68-5804 in a rash and negligent manner and it had crushed the deceased. The deceased was shifted to PGI Chandigarh where he died on account of the injuries. The deceased is claimed to be earning Rs.5000/- per month by fixing marble, for which he had experience of 20 years. A case was got registered at Police Station Sector 5 Panchkula with regard to this accident. The claimants sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Respondents have resisted the claim petition. Respondents no. 1 and 2 have denied the very accident to have taken place with the jeep in question. They have denied in the alternative the rash and negligent driving of the same as a cause of the accident. The FIR lodged with the police is said to be false. The insurance company, respondent no.3 has denied the driver of the vehicle to be possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. It is also claimed that the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 12.02.2009:- “1- Whether the claimant has received injuries in the accident in question which took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, as alleged ?OPP 2- If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount ?OPP 3 FAO NO. 3777 of 2010 3- Whether the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, to what effect ?OPR3 4- Relief” The parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award on 25.08.2009. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimants have brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Vikram Bali, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vinod Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and have gone through the record. The only submission made before me is regarding the multiplier. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal is of 5. According to him, though the multiplier suggested by the second schedule is 5, yet the said multiplier is held to be incorrect by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, where multiplier of 7 had been adopted for working out compensation in the case of death at the age of 65 years. Learned counsel for the insurance company does not dispute the position that emerges from the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr's case (supra). 4 FAO NO. 3777 of 2010 The Tribunal assessed annual dependency of the claimant at Rs.28,008/- and multiplied it with 5, the multiplier found suitable in this case. Now substituting the multiplier of 5 by 7 as is laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr's case (supra), the amount that comes out as compensation payable to the claimants on the death of Goverdhan is Rs.1,96,048/-. Learned Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate and adding the said amount, the compensation payable to the petitioners comes to Rs.2,06,048/-. I consequently accept the appeal and rounding off the above given figure, enhance the compensation from Rs.1,50,040 to Rs.2,06,000/-. This amount shall be shared by claimants no.1,3 to 5 in equal shares. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.09.2011 dinesh