F.A. O. No. 157 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 157 of 2012 Date of decision:-14.08.2013 Smt. Kulvinder Kaur and anr. ....... Appellants Versus Gurpal Singh and ors. ........ Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent no.3. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. Kulvinder Kaur and Jujhar Singh, the parents of Gurinder Singh, the deceased have brought a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') seeking compensation in a sum of `30,00,000/-. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for short 'the Tribunal) vide award dated 3.2.2011 allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of `5,40,000/- as compensation. Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.19 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 157 of 2012 -2- On 8.11.2008 at about 10.00 am Gurinder Singh met with an accident with a bus bearing registration No. PB-32D-5657 driven by respondent no.1 Gurpal Singh. Gurinder Singh has been 18 years old, an unmarried person, who was milk seller and was selling 25 to 30 kgs. milk per day to M/s Verka Milk Plant, Mohali. He was also having 15 killas of agricultural land on contract basis and was also looking after the agricultural operations of land measuring 8 killas which was in the name of his grandfather. He was, thus, having a monthly income of `40,000/-. He had also appeared for senior secondary examination. Respondents No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex- parte. The New India Assurance Company Limited, the insurer has denied the averments of the claimants regarding the occupation and income of the deceased. The amount claimed by the claimants was alleged to be highly exaggerated. Taking the income of the deceased at `4500/- per month, 1/3rd deduction was applied for the expenses of the deceased on himself and taking monthly dependency of the claimants at `3000/-, annual dependency was found to be `36,000/- per annum. Multiplier of 15 was adopted and claimants are found to have lost a sum of `5,40,000/-. Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.19 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 157 of 2012 -3- Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the multiplier should have been taken on the basis of the age of the deceased. He has, however, admitted that the dependency has been assessed on a higher side because the claimants are the parents of the deceased and their dependency could not be more than ½ of the income of the deceased. He has, however, submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on a very lower side and has not even added any amount thereto in the name of future prospects. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that the multiplier is selected on the age of the claimants because it is they who are to expect monetary help from the deceased. According to him, in case of wife, she is normally of lower age than that of the deceased and in that case the multiplier is selected on the basis of the age of the deceased. According to him, when the claimants are the parents of the deceased, their age is more than the age of the deceased and the multiplier could not be selected on the basis of the age of the deceased because the claimants are not to survive for that period. He has further submitted that the addition in the name of future prospects is also not admissible in this case because there is no proof of any income and it cannot be said that the said income would have increased in future. Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.19 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 157 of 2012 -4- On the question of multiplier, a full bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another 2013(2) R.C.R (Civil) 660 provides ample guidelines. It has been laid down in this decision that as regards the cases where the age of the victim happens to be upto 15 years, the multiplier of 15 should be adopted irrespective of the fact that the claim petition was brought under section 163-A or section 166 of the Act. It has been further laid down in this decision that in all other cases of death where application has been made under section 166 of the Act, the multiplier as indicated in column No.(4) of the table of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77 should be followed. At the age of 15, a boy cannot be believed to be married and, therefore, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been taking the case to be of an unmarried person in this case. No distinction has been made for married or unmarried person in Reshma Kumari's case supra or in Smt. Sarla Verma's case, supra. This question has however, been specifically dealt with in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 343 and P.S. Somanathan and others v. District Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.19 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 157 of 2012 -5- Insurance Officer and another 2011 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 228. In both these cases the deceased was unmarried and multiplier has been selected on the basis of the age of the deceased. The deceased in the case in hand is 18 years 06 months old. In Smt. Sarla Verma's case, supra, multiplier of 18 is mentioned for the age group of 15 to 25 years. Therefore, the multiplier in this case should have been of 18. I could not find any reason to deviate from the finding of learned Tribunal on the income of the deceased, which is assessed at `4500/- per month. This is the income of the deceased and it is quite apparent to anyone that after passing of time, this income was to increase. Earlier a specific category was made in Smt. Sarla Verma's case, supra for making addition in the name of future prospects in favour of people, who were in permanent job. This distinction has been done away with in later judgments and in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 170 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down that the addition to the income in the name of future prospects is to be made in every case. So the income being `4500/- per month, addition thereto has to be of `2250. The income of the deceased, thus, comes to `6750/-. The claimants are the parents of the deceased and, therefore, their dependency is ½ of the same, which Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.19 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 157 of 2012 -6- comes to `3375/-. Multiplying the same with 12, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to `40,500. Multiplying it further with 18, the multiplier found suitable as above, I find a sum of `7,29,000/- as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Gurinder Singh. Adding to it, a sum of `10,000/- in the name of loss of estate and expenses on last rites, I assess a sum of `7,39,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellants. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from `5,40,000/- to `7,39,000/- which shall be payable to the claimants by the respondents with interest and in the manner as allowed by the Tribunal in his award. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 14.08.2013 dinesh Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.19 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh