F.A.O. No. 4400 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4400 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 21,2011 Parminder Kaur and others .... Appellants Versus Madan Lal and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Ashok Bector, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate, for Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2 Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal brought by the dependents of Sukhdev Singh, who lost his life in a road-side accident, that took place during the night intervening 8th and 9th April, 2007. The claim petition has been brought under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short, “the Tribunal”) allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,13,000/- as compensation to the claimants. They have F.A.O. No. 4400 of 2010 2 .. brought this appeal for enhancement of the said amount. The claim of the appellants, in their claim petition, is as under : On 6.4.2007, Sukhdev Singh (deceased) along with Bhag Singh went to Baba Balak Nath in truck No. PB-12D-0082. During the night intervening 8th and 9th April, 2007, at about 11.30 PM, they were returning from Shah Talai to Ropar in the said truck, which was driven by Bhag Singh. At about 4.45 AM, the truck was on the bridge of Sirsa canal. In the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration No.HP-11B-2541 driven by Madan Lal, came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner. The said truck had hit the rear side of the truck driven by Bhag Singh, as a result of which, the rear portion of the truck driven by Bhag Singh was damaged. In the said accident, Sukhdev Singh suffered multiple injuries on account of which, he died at the spot. A case was registered at Police Station Sadar, Ropar by way of FIR No. 34 dated 9.4.2007 for offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. Sukhdev Singh is claimed to have been 23 years old at the time of his death. He was running a Karyana shop, Dhaba and STD/PCO from which, he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants claimed that they have spent Rs.40,000/- on transportation of the dead body, funeral and last rites of the deceased. Rs. 25.00 lacs is the sum claimed as compensation. On notice, respondents have contested the claim petition. They have denied the material averments of the claimants. F.A.O. No. 4400 of 2010 3 .. Respondent no.1 has denied involvement of the truck driven by him in the accident. Respondent No.2 has claimed that the accident is the outcome of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. PB-12D-0082 and that the FIR has been lodged on the wrong facts. Oriental Insurance Company, respondent No.3, took various preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of claim petition etc. The very accident having occurred in the manner alleged by the claimant is denied. It is claimed that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It is also claimed that driver of truck No. PB-12D-0082 was also not having valid and effective driving license. Denying the very accident to have taken place with the truck in question, the petition is claimed to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether Sukhdev Singh has died due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident dated 9.4.2007 at about 4.45 AM in the area of village Sirsa Nangal caused by respondent no.1 while driving truck bearing No. HP- 11B-2541 rashly and negligently? OPP 2. Whether respondent No.1 driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? If so, its effect? OPP 3. Is the petition not maintainable as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the claimants are the legal representative of deceased Sukhdev Singh and are entitled to get compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? F.A.O. No. 4400 of 2010 4 .. OPP 5. Relief. The parties led their evidence. After hearing learned counsel representing the parties, learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition vide award dated 21.4.2009, awarding a sum of Rs.4,13,000/- as compensation to the claimants to be shared by them in equal. He has also allowed interest on the said amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. Concession of 3% was, however, given to respondent No. 3 in the interest, if the compensation amount was deposited within 45 days. Dissatisfied with the award, the present appeal has been brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation . I have heard Mr. Ashok Bector, Advocate, for the appellants, Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.1, Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate,for respondent No.2 and Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.3 and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the award on three grounds. The first is that the amount taken as income of the deceased is too low. The second aspect, on which the award is challenged, is selection of multiplier and the third aspect is award of compensation for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the F.A.O. No. 4400 of 2010 5 .. amount taken as income of the deceased by the learned tribunal is Rs.3000/- per month. According to him, accident took place in the year 2007 and in that year, the deceased who was earning a lot of money by running Kiryana shop, a Dhaba and STD/PCO and that it could not be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. He has further submitted that Sukhdev Singh died at the age of 23 years and the age of the deceased is not questioned any where by the respondents. According to him, the multiplier to have been adopted in this case was of 18 instead of 17 as adopted by learned Tribunal. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to Parminder Kaur, claimant No.1, and this is also not sufficient. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month because there was no evidence to prove that he was running a Kiryana shop, Dhaba or STD/PCO. According to them, multiplier of 17 is appropriate for assessing the compensation in this case. They have, however, submitted that some amount may be increased under the head – loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Even an unskilled labourer used to earn more than Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of the accident in question. The amount of Rs.3,000/- assessed in this case as income of the deceased on the date of accident, is therefore, on lower side. I take F.A.O. No. 4400 of 2010 6 .. his income at Rs.3,600/- per month for assessing compensation in this case. Applying a cut of 1/3rd to this income, the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.2,400/- and further multiplying it by 12, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.28800/-. Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, has found the second schedule appended to the Act as not appropriate for claim cases filed under section 166 of the Act. It has laid down that the appropriate multiplier in case of death in the age group of 15 to 25 years is 18. Multiplying the annual dependency with 18, the sum that is worked out is Rs.5,18,400/-. A sum of Rs.20,000/- has also been held allowable to the claimants on the death in such a case for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Adding that amount to the aforesaid amount, the claimants are found entitled to Rs.5,38,400/- as compensation. The appeal is, consequently, allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,13,000/- to Rs. 5,38,000/-, which shall be shared by the appellant-claimants in equal. Other terms of the award shall remain the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 21st,2011 som