F.A.O. No. 479 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 479 of 2006 and Cross Objection No.13-II of 2007 Date of decision: April 09, 2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant Vs. Urmila and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Makar, Advocate for Mr. Rajeev Kaswan, Advocate for respondents-claimants. Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment of mine shall dispose of an appeal against the award dated 5.9.2005 preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, as well as cross objection No.13-II of 2007, filed by the respondents- claimants in respect of the award dated 5.9.2005 vide which the claimants were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.12,41,000/- on account of the death of Satbir Singh in a motor vehicular accident on 7.5.2004. The deceased Satbir Singh (herein referred as 'the deceased') along with his wife Urmila was going towards Mandi Dabwali on a bicycle in order to make some purchases. At about 4.15 p.m. when they reached Bathinda Chowk, Dabwali, due to rush, the deceased dropped the claimant Urmila on one side of the road and he also stood by the left side of the road. In the meantime, the respondent Balwinder Singh while driving bus bearing registration No.HR39-3536 rashly and negligently came from behind and struck into bicycle dragging him to a considerable distance. resultantly, he died. This claim petition was contested and ultimately it was accepted in part. F.A.O. No. 479 of 2006 -2- The Insurance Company-appellant without challenging the rashness and negligence of the driver, has assailed the award only qua the quantum of compensation. At the same time, the claimants have also sought for enhancement of compensation by modifying the award. Arguments heard. The claimant No.1 is a widow and claimants No.2 and 3 are minor children and claimant No.4 is the mother of the deceased. Though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was 34 years old, however, he being the S.S. Teacher in Government High School, Dabwali is proved to be born on 2.3.1964 and the accident had taken place on 7.5.2004, therefore, his age at the time of occurrence was slightly higher than 40 years. The claimant Urmila was 33 years of age, whereas, the children were in the age group of 5- ½ years to 9 years. The income of the deceased was taken at Rs.11834/- and after making necessary deduction of 1/3rd which he may have been contributing to himself, his net dependency was considered to be Rs.7890/- per month and Rs.94680/- per annum. While considering the age of the deceased as 40 years, as proved from the service record, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 in the case and made calculation on these parameters. However, this court is not convinced to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation was awarded at a higher rate. It is not a case where the income was assessed by approximation, but he being the Government employee, his income has been determined on the basis of the definite evidence, as such, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the deceased was earning less than Rs.11834/- at the time of accident. As such, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation was awarded at a higher rate sans merit. But, at the same time, some merit could be found in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded to the claimant was inadequate. Recently, the Apex Court in case Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Delhi, 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 77, it was observed that in case a person dies at the age of 40 the multiplier of 15 would be appropriate to be applied. Thus, while applying the ratio as delivered in Sarla Verma's case (supra) the claimants could be awarded a sum of Rs.1,89,360/- over and above the award amount. F.A.O. No. 479 of 2006 -3- Resultantly, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the cross objection petition preferred by the claimants is partly accepted and they would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,89,360/- over and above the award amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the enhanced amount. Parties are left to bear their own costs. April 09, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge