IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.1325 of 1994 (O&M) Date of Decision 28.10.2009 State of Haryana and another ...... Appellants VERSUS Shanti Devi and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Mamta Singla Talwar, A.A.G., Haryana, for the appellants. None for the respondents. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This appeal preferred by the appellant-State of Haryana, is directed against the award dated 23.04.1994, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, vide which compensation to the tune of Rs.2,16,000/- alongwith interest 12% per annum was awarded in favour of the respondents No.1 to 5-claimants (herein referred as 'the claimants') on account of the death of Ram Karan in a motor vehicular accident. Heard. The argument advance by learned State counsel is that the Tribunal fell in error while deciding the income of the deceased Ram Karan as Rs.1,000/-. The other argument is that issue No.3 was not properly decided. As regards the first argument, it may be observed that the claimants could not produce any document to prove the income of the deceased. Yet the Court could assess the income of the deceased while taking into consideration the minimum wages as fixed by the State. As such, no fault could be found in the findings returned by the Tribunal while determining the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month and Tribunal was also not incorrect while observing that in view of the large family which the deceased was maintaining, the dependency towards the deceased was deducted to the extent of only Rs.100/-. As regards the F.A.O.No.1325 of 1994 (O&M) -2- contribution of the deceased towards himself, the Tribunal could note of the fact that since Ram Karan was having a wife, two minor sons, one minor daugther and old mother. Shanti Devi-claimant, widow of the deceased, while appearing in the witness box has also stated that deceased used to spent Rs.900/- for running the household. Thus, keeping in view the large family, the Tribunal determined the net dependency of the claimants @ Rs.900/- per month. Even otherwise, after 15 years of the passing of the award, it would not be feasible to interfere in the same on the aforesaid technical grounds. Even in the year 1990, it was difficult to maintain three minor children, wife and mother in Rs.900/- per month. As regards the multiplier, the petitioner was 38 years old and thus, taking into consideration the normal expectancy of life and the average life span in this front of country, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 20. Though, the Tribunal was not correct in applying the multiplier, at such a higher rate, yet it is noticed that in this case, the Tribunal did not award any compensation to the claimants on account of the funeral expenses, last rites, transportation and consortium. Therefore, some of the amount which was awarded on account of the higher multiplier could be adjusted qua the aforesaid heads and also due to the loss of income. Therefore, no error could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal, while assessing the dependency of the deceased @ 900/- and applied the multiplier of 20. No other point has been raised. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 28.10.2009 mamta-II