FAO No. 3659 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3659 of 2010 (in MACT No.11 of 2008) Date of decision: 9.11.2011 Ramanjit Kaur and others ...Appellants Versus Bhai Industries, Ludhiana Road, Moga and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.CL Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Amit Dhawan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3 **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (For short 'the Tribunal') has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as `25,00/- per month, whereas he was working as a driver. He further argued that the age of the deceased being 24 years, in view of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied, whereas the learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 14, which is inadequate. FAO No. 3659 of 2010 2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation as per the Scheduled appended with the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, there is no scope of any enhancement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. From the perusal of the record, it is made clear that the claimants have not produced any documentary proof of income of the deceased. He was driving the Maruti Van at the time of the accident. But the claimants could not produce any driving licence. He was the only bread earner in the family. He left behind his young widow, minor child of 2 years and widowed mother. Therefore, the income of the deceased is to be considered as Rs.3000/- per month, which would meet the ends of justice. It is also proved on record that the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of his death. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 14, which is on the lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced to 18, in view of the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra). Ordered accordingly. The learned Tribunal assessed the dependency as 2/3rd, which is appropriate because there are 3 dependents. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the conventional heads being just and adequate, are not disturbed. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to `4,32,000/- (3000 x 2/3 x 12 x 18 ). The balance enhanced amount i.e. ` 1,52,000/- (4,32,000- 2,80,000, already awarded by the learned Tribunal) shall be paid FAO No. 3659 of 2010 3 to the appellants in the manner indicated in the impugned award within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the appeal, till its realisation. In view of above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above. 9.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE