FAO No. 1695 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1695 of 2007 and Cross Objection Nos. 317-CII of 2008 Decided on :10-11-2008 Smt. Roshani Devi and others ....Appellants VERSUS Chain Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. S.K.Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.D.Yadav, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2. Mr. Vivek Singal, Advocate for respondent no.3. MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is preferred by the claimants against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 23.5.2006. Respondent no 2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle has also filed cross objections. In an accident which occurred on 19th June, 1990 Gaje Singh lost his life. He was working as Assistant Lineman with Haryana State Electricity Board and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1613/- per month. The Tribunal assessed his income as Rs. 1593/- per month and the annual income as Rs. 19116/-. The dependency was assessed as Rs. 14337/- per annum. Multiplier of 16 was applied. Compensation in this manner comes to Rs. 2,29,392/- which was directed to be paid alongwith interest of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its FAO No. 1695 of 2007 2 realisation. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded on account of funeral expenses and loss of consortium only to the widow. While awarding the interest, the Tribunal segregated the liability to say that the interest component would be paid by the Insurance Company from the date it joins the proceedings till the date it deposits the amount. For rest of the period i.e from the date of filing of the petition till the date when the Insurance Company was impleaded as party by respondent no. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the vehicle, liability to satisfy was fastened upon respondents no. 1 and 2. The reason for this was that an ex parte award had come in the year 1991 against respondents no. 1 and 2 which was subsequently set aside in the year 2006. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the amount is inadequate, while the learned counsel for the cross objector who is the owner by placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as 'Urmilla Pandey and others versus Khalil Ahmad and others' 1994 ACJ (SC) 805 has stated that the liability to satisfy the interest component fastened upon him is erroneous. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the award. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the deceased was working as Assistant Lineman and was in regular employment. In cases where deceased are in regular employment, the Tribunal while assessing the amount of compensation should ordinarily take the future aspects of the income of deceased into consideration as a person who is in the regular employment is likely to gain promotions and also earn consequent increases during the course of his career. FAO No. 1695 of 2007 3 The principle as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court for determining the compensation by taking the future income into consideration is to double the salary which the deceased is earning and by adding it into the single salary and then to take an average thereof. In this manner, considering the fact that deceased was earning Rs. 1593/- per month which was accepted by the Tribunal, double of this amount comes to Rs.3186/- + 1593 = 4779/2 = 2389/-. The deceased was survived by three children and his widow and therefore a cut of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses would be just and appropriate. Dependency in this manner comes to Rs. 1592/- per month i.e. Rs. 19104/- per annum (1592 x 12 = Rs. 19104/-). Multiplier of 17 would be just and adequate in the given set of circumstances considering the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act which is the guiding factor. In this manner, compensation works out to be Rs. 3,24,768/-. Amount awarded for funeral expenses and loss of love & affection is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- under both these heads. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs. 3,44,768/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of its realisation. This amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Urmilla Pandey's case (supra) The appeal and cross objections stand allowed in the aforesaid terms and the award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. November 10 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge