FAO No. 2422 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 2422 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.3.2010 Smt. Vijay Laxmi ... Appellant vs Khalid and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mrs. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the Insurance company. Rajesh Bindal J. This appeal has been filed by the widow of deceased Lal Chand seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). Briefly the facts as mentioned in the award of the learned Tribunal are that on 31.8.2007, Lal Chand was going to his Village Haliyaki from Ghosgarh on his motor cycle. At about 8.30 pm, when he reached ahead of Sampka turning, the offending vehicle driven by respondent no. 2 at a high speed, in rash and negligent manner, came from Pataudi side on its wrong side and struck against the motor cycle of Lal Chand. As a result of this, he fell down and was run over by its front wheel. Lal Chand died on the spot. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 25 years, is not correct, which should have been 18 and not 16 as applied by it. In support the claim, she relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that compensation of Rs. 10,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal on account of funeral expenses, transportation, loss to the estate and consortium etc. is not proper. Further it was stated that even the calculations made by the Tribunal are not correct as there is error therein. While not disputing the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the Insurance company submitted that considering the age of the deceased, application of multiplier is correct, which does not call for any interference. He further submitted that fair amount has been awarded to the appellant on the other heads also. FAO No. 2422 of 2009 -2- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) laid down certain guide-lines for the purpose of calculation of compensation in the form of determination of dependency and application of multiplier. The relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one- fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. xx xx xx 42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P.SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” The salary and dependency of the deceased in the present case is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. The dispute in the present appeal is only with regard to the application of multiplier. It is admitted case of the parties that the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident and considering his age at the time of accident, in terms of Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied instead of 16 as applied by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, after applying the multiplier of 18, the amount of FAO No. 2422 of 2009 -3- compensation is assessed at Rs. 5,18,400/- as against Rs. 3,84,400/-. The appellant is also granted Rs. 15,000/- on account of transportation, funeral expenses, loss to the estate and consortium. The total amount of compensation comes out to Rs. 5,33,400/-. The enhanced compensation shall be shared and dealt with in the same manner as directed by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 8.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge