F.A.O. No. 546 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 546 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 3 -12-2009 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants Shri Manpreet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.3 HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 5.3.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra as well as the order dated 23.5.2008 vide which the award dated 5.3.2008 has been modified. The brief facts are that on 5.5.2006 at about 1.30 p.m. Gulzar Singh (deceased) was proceeding from village Bakana towards Pipli on bicycle. He was accompanied by his father Hem Singh who was riding on a separate bicycle. Gurmeet Singh was ahead of his father. When Gurmeet Singh reached in the area of village Masana on the G.T. road at about 1.45 p.m., one Tata Indica car bearing registration No. CH-03K/2871 being driven by Palvinder Singh respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, came from the side of Shahbad and hit bicycle of Gulzar Singh from behind. As a result of its impact, Gulzar Singh came under the offending vehicle and suffered multiple grievous injuries on his head, as well as on the vital organs of his body and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The aforesaid driver applied brakes. Hem Singh noted down registration number of the car. The accident was witnessed by Hem Singh. F.A.O. No. 546 of 2009(O&M) 2 The accident has occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver. The matter was reported to the police. Mrs. Amarjit Bhinder respondent No.2 is the registered owner of the vehicle which is on sapurdari with her. The offending vehicle is insured with National Insurance Company Limited-respondent. In their joint written statement the respondents No.1 to 3 have inter-alia pleaded that this petition has been filed by the claimants in connivance with the local police. It has been alleged that no accident took place on 5.5.2006. Gulzar Singh was probably hit by some unknown vehicle on the G.T. road. In the written statement filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, it has been inter-alia pleaded that Palvinder Singh respondent was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The said car was being driven in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Lastly, it has been pleaded that the petition is liable to be dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award, which has been further modified vide order dated 23.5.2008. Feeling aggrieved with the inadequacy of the awarded amount, this appeal has been preferred by the claimants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the appellants urged with great eloquence that admittedly, the deceased was 45 years of age and was keeping a good health at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 13 only, whereas it should have been 15. It is F.A.O. No. 546 of 2009(O&M) 3 further canvassed at the bar that the learned Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was contributing only 2/3 of his income towards his family. Admittedly, the deceased was the only bread winner of his family comprising of his wife, four minor children and aged parents. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding inadequate compensation on funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate as only Rs.9500/-has been awarded on these counts. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company has pressed into service that multiplier has been applied as per the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and furthermore it has been rightly observed that 1/3rd has to be deducted from the income of the deceased on account of his personal expenses. Thus, there is no scope to enhance the amount awarded on account of compensation by the learned Tribunal. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. A glance through the award would reveal that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9500/- only on account of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate of the deceased. To my mind, this amount is on the lower side. In re: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patrica Jean Mahajan 2002(3) Recent Civil Reports 534, the apex court has ruled that “Second Schedule is a safe guide to calculate the amount of just compensation in all cases. However, the court can deviate from it in appropriate cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Multiplier depends upon various factors i.e. age of the deceased, dependents, income and status thereof subject to not more than 18 in any F.A.O. No. 546 of 2009(O&M) 4 case. Deduction of 1/3rd income on account of self expenses is also justified for application of multiplier system.” As per the Second Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the multiplier of 13 is to be applied in cases of victims who fall within the age group of 45 to 50 years. There is no gain-saying the fact that herein the age of the deceased was 45 years. All the same, it is to be borne in mind that here-in the deceased was the sole bread winner of his family comprising his wife, four minor children and aged parents. That being so, the multiplier should have been a little bit on the higher side. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs.70,000/- as compensation is allowed over and above the awarded amount. If the respondent-insurance company deposits this enhanced amount within 45 days from today, the claimants shall not be entitled to claim any interest thereon. The enhanced amount on deposit, shall be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the operative part of the award as well as the order dated 23.5.2008 vide which the award has been modified. This F.A.O. is disposed of accordingly. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE December 3, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No