IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 260 of 1988 Date of Decision: 3.12.2008 Sheshar Kaur. ....... Appellant through Shri S.S.Brar, Advocate. Versus Harjinder Singh and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 and 4 to 6 through Nemo. Respondent no.3-New India Assurance Company through Shri N.K.Khosla, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation which was granted to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, `the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.11.1987 passed in M.A.C.T. Case No. 37 of 1986. Himat Singh, son of the appellant, who was aged 38 years old, died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 3.9.1986. A claim petition was filed by her as the deceased was unmarried. She claimed that he was having 28 Bighas of land and was earning Rs.2000/- per month through agriculture and also by selling milk. F.A.O.No.260 of 1988 -2- .... The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1000/- per month and fixed the monthly dependency of the claimant at Rs.500/-. A multiplier of `10' was applied keeping in view the age of the claimant and treating the life expectancy as 70 years. In this manner, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was awarded to the claimant as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon the driver, owner and the insurance company of offending truck no. CHW-6272, who were directed to do so jointly as well as severally. The claimant did not feel satisfied with the amount of compensation and hence, this appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the impugned award deserves to be modified. Admittedly, there is evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was having some agricultural land to his credit. The Tribunal has assessed him as a labourer which is incorrect. There is unrebutted evidence to show that he was having 10 to 12 buffaloes. In this view of the matter, the income of the deceased could not have been compared with that of a labourer. In my view, the monthly income of Rs.2000/- which was claimed by the appellant cannot be termed be excessive in the given set of circumstances. Therefore, the income of the deceased is held to be Rs.2000/- per month. The normal mode of deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal F.A.O.No.260 of 1988 -3- .... expenses should have been applied instead of 50% for assessing the dependency of the claimant-appellant. After doing so, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.1333/- which is rounded off to Rs.1335/-, i.e., Rs.16020/- per annum. The multiplier of `10' which was adopted by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. Therefore, the compensation works out to Rs.1,60,200/-. Another sum of Rs.25000/- is allowed on account of funeral expenses and loss of love & affection as the deceased was the only son of the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is held entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,85,200/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation shall be payable along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. December 03,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge