IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. FAO No.347 of 2004 Date of Decision : October 1, 2008 Roop Lal and another …Appellants. Versus: Shamsher Singh and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate For respondent No.1: Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan. Advocate. For respondent No.3: Ms. Uma Manta, vice Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral) The challenge in the appeal is to the Award dated 21.6.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, in M.A.C. Petition No. 24-S/2 of 2003 titled as Roop Lal & another vs. Shamsher Singh and others, awarding a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The claimants alone have assailed the Award seeking enhancement of compensation. Neither the owner, the driver nor 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the Insurance Company has filed any appeal or cross- objections. Therefore, the scope of the appeal is limited. The claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) averring that Shri Narender Kumar died in an accident on 24th and 25th May, 2003, which took place due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-27-0897 by Shri Pyar Chand. The vehicle owned by Shri Shamsher Singh was insured by the National Insurance Company. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Shri Narender Kumar had died in the accident in question on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.2 as alleged, if so, its effect? ..OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation , if so, how much and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.2 was not having valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was not having valid documents as alleged? ….OPR-3 4. Relief. After affording opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence and appreciating the material on record, the Tribunal held that Shri Narender Kumar died in an accident due to the negligence of the driver and the vehicle being insured, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner. 3 On issue No.2, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased to be Rs.2000/- per month, but however, after deducting Rs.600/-, which the deceased, bachelor would have spent on himself and also Rs.700/-, which he would have been spending on his family, had he not died and got married, the dependency for the purpose of loss of estate was determined to be Rs.700/- per month. Since the deceased was 18 years of age, by applying the multiplier of 16, a sum of Rs.1,34,400/- was determined as loss to the estate. I have gone through the record and there is nothing to prove that the income of the deceased, as on the date of death was Rs.15000/- per month. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a figure of Rs.2000/- per month, as the salary payable to the driver was Rs.2500/- per month and the salary of the deceased who was working as a conductor would be less than that of the driver. The submission of the learned counsel that the income was Rs.15000/- per month is rejected. However, referring to and relying upon the latest decision of the Apex Court in Bilkish vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another {2008(4) SCC 259}, the deduction carried out by the Tribunal on the monthly income of the deceased needs to be corrected. The Apex Court in similar circumstances, where the claim petition had been filed by the successor-in- interest of the deceased, who was un-married, assessed the dependency/loss after deducting only 1/3rd of the income. 4 Accordingly, the loss of estate is determined at Rs.2000/- divided by 2/3rd = Rs.1333.20 or say Rs.1334/- x 12 = Rs.16008/- and by applying the multiplier of 16, the total amount of compensation would be worked out to Rs.16008 x 16 = Rs.2,56,128/-. The impugned Award is modified to the aforesaid extent. The claimants shall be entitled to all other benefits as directed by the trial Court No other point has been urged. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. October 1, 2008. (rana)