FAO No.2352 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.2352 of 2008(O&M) Sonu ... Appellant VERSUS Jamil Khan and others ... Respondents FAO No.2354 of 2008(O&M) Raghbir ... Appellant VERSUS Jamil Khan and others ... Respondents and FAO No.2356 of 2008(O&M) Dharambir ... Appellant VERSUS Jamil Khan and others ... Respondents Decided on : September 07, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Kusum Anjali, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Nirmal Mittal, Advocate for respondent – Insurance Company. FAO No.2352 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] A.N.JINDAL, J.- This order shall dispose of three appeals i.e. FAO No.2352, 2354 and 2356 of 2008, filed by the claimants – appellants challenging the award dated 14.12.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani and praying for enhancement of compensation. FAO No.2352/2008 : Sonu – claimant has sought enhancement of compensation awarded to the tune of Rs.12,000/- to him, on account of the fracture suffered by him on the clavicle bone in the motor vehicle accident. The solitary argument advanced on his behalf is that compensation awarded to him does not commensurate to the loss suffered by him, on account of the said injury. Heard. The claimant remained admitted in the hospital only for two days and spent Rs.3126/- during that period. Thus, after taking stock of the situation, the compensation awarded by Tribunal appears to be quite fair and reasonable. FAO No.2354/2008 : The claimant Raghbir and proforma respondent Guddi have been awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Bijender, aged 18 years. Regarding enhancement, it is noticed that the deceased Bijender was a young unmarried son of the claimant Raghbir and the Tribunal while assessing his notional income at Rs.2500/- per month, FAO No.2352 of 2008(O&M) [ 3 ] deducted ½ on account of self-dependency and applied the multiplier of 13 only. The Tribunal appears to have fallen in error while deducting ½ of the notional income as self-dependency, because he was of marriageable age and was likely to be married within one year or so, and in that situation his self dependency was certainly to be decreased and dependency towards the family should have been increased. Thus, multiplier has obviously been applied on the lower side. FAO No.2356/2008 : The claimant - Dharambir suffered the multiple injuries (total 8 in number) and 33% disability of the upper limbs due to fracture of both bones of left forearm and restriction of movement of left elbow with wasting of muscles, but was awarded Rs.75,000/- (Rs.48,000 on account of loss of future earnings, Rs.15,000/- on account of pain and sufferings and Rs.12,000/- medical expenses). It may be noted that the claimant had suffered multiple fractures of ribs and, thus, the compensation seems to be inadequate. In view of the above, it is concluded as under:- No grounds to enhance the compensation awarded to claimant Sonu are made out and thus, FAO No.2352 of 2008 is dismissed. However, both the parties are in agreement that the claim of Raghbir may be settled on payment of Rs.70,000/- over and above the award amount and in case of claimant Dharambir, it may be settled at Rs.25,000/- over and above the award amount. FAO No.2352 of 2008(O&M) [ 4 ] Thus, FAO No.2354 and 2356 of 2008 are partly allowed and the compensation is enhanced, as agreed to between the parties. However, the other terms of the impugned award shall remain intact. September 07, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE