FAO NO.1031 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO.1031 OF 2008 Date of decision: May 14, 2009 Usha Sharma and others ...Appellants Versus Sanjay Goyal and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for New India Assurance Company Ltd. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of awarded compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short `the Tribunal') dated 7.9.2007. 2. The deceased Som Dutt Sharma died in a road accident on 19.1.2004. He was aged 56 years and 9 months at the time of accident and was employed as Sub-Inspector with Chandigarh Police. He was drawing a salary of Rs.16,500/- per month. The deceased was due for promotion to the rank of Inspector. 3. The Tribunal framed the following issues for determination:- FAO NO.1031 OF 2008 2 1. Whether respondent No.1 by driving car no. CH-01-Y-4924 rashly & negligently caused the accident on 12.1.2004 resulting into the death of Som Dutt Sharma? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation claimants are entitled? If so from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the day of accident? OPR 4. Relief. 4. The Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants by holding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the finding under Issue No.3 went against the Insurance Company. It was held that respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. 5. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the deceased died due to injuries suffered in the accident, which took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, being driver of offending vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.13,200/- per month. It was submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the gross income of the deceased, i.e., Rs.16,475/- per month for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. 7. It is further pointed out that as per the 2nd schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has wrongly applied a multiplier of 6 whereas a multiplier of 8 should have been applied. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. As per the salary certificate, the gross salary of the deceased at FAO NO.1031 OF 2008 3 the time of the accident was Rs.16,475/- per month and after deduction, his carry home salary was Rs.7,264/- per month. The deduction of Rs.6,000/- was towards contribution of GPF and except this deduction, all other deductions were statutory deductions. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Limited vs. Indira Srivastava and others, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 614 observed as under:- 24.In view of our finding above mentioned, the appeal is to be allowed in part insofar as the High Court had directed deduction of medical reimbursement and tax elements on the entire sum which according to the statute constitute income. But we decline to do so for two reasons. Firstly, the accident had taken place as far back as on Ist September, 1997 and secondly, the Tribunal as also the High Court failed to take into consideration rise in the income of the deceased by way of promotion or otherwise. 10. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.13,200/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd for his own expenses, assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs.8,800/- per month. It was also noticed by the Tribunal that the deceased was to retire at the age of 58 years, after about 15 months of the date of death and that he was due for promotion as Inspector of Police in the near future. The Tribunal keeping the above facts in view applied a multiplier of 6 and, thus, determined the compensation payable to the claimants. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the dependency should have been assessed by taking into account of gross salary of the deceased cannot be accepted. The Tribunal after due care FAO NO.1031 OF 2008 4 took into consideration the statutory deductions while considering the amount for arriving at the amount of dependency. I, thus, do not find any ground to differ with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, whereby it assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs.8,800/- per month. 12. It is correct that keeping in view the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 8 in view of the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ought to have been applied for arriving at the compensation payable, but keeping in view the facts arrived at by the Tribunal namely that the deceased was due for promotion and that he had only 15 months to retire, I think just and fair to apply a multiplier of 7 for arriving at the amount of compensation payable to the claimants as against the multiplier of 6 applied by the Tribunal. 13. No other point was raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to Rs. (8800x12x1) = 1,05,600/- as compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of the appeal. May 14, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) mk/srm JUDGE