IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 727 of 1988 Date of Decision: 3.12.2008 Dhola Devi and others. ....... Appellants through Shri R.A.Yadav, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and another. ....... Respondents through Shri O.P.Sharma, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. Dis-satisfied with award dated 7.3.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No.94 of 29.9.1987, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation granted to them. Hans Raj, aged 38 years, who was employed as Armed guard in Bank of Baroda in Delhi, lost his life in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 11.9.1987. He was survived by his widow, two sons and three daughters. A claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased for grant of compensation. He was stated to be earning Rs.2000/- per month. After appraisal of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held F.A.O. No.727 of 1988 -2- .... that the driver of the offending bus, which was owned by the Haryana Roadways, was negligent in causing the accident in which the deceased was killed. It further found that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.1190.35 per month from the bank and was getting monthly pension of Rs.261/- as he was an ex-serviceman. However, the dependency of the claimants was fixed at Rs.750/- per month. A multiplier of `16' was adopted to arrive at a figure of Rs.1,44,000/- which was awarded to the claimants as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In my opinion, the impugned award deserves to be modified. Concededly, the deceased was in regular employment. It is clear from a perusal of the award that the monthly salary of Rs.1190.35 as received by the deceased from the bank was proved on record. However, the dependency has been assessed wrongly. The deceased was survived by his widow, two sons and three daughters and in this manner, it would not be safe to apply even normal mode of deduction of 1/4th on account of personal expenses. In such circumstances, where the dependents are more, either unit system is to be adopted or simple guess work has to be resorted to for assessing the dependency. If the unit system is accepted in the instant case, the family consisted of seven members including the deceased and the value F.A.O. No.727 of 1988 -3- .... of each unit comes to Rs.207/- on the basis of his monthly salary and the pension received by him, i.e., Rs.1190.35 + Rs.261/- = Rs.1451.35. As per the settled principle, two units are to be deducted for personal expenses of the adult deceased from his monthly income. In this way, the dependency comes to Rs.1037.35, which is rounded off to Rs.1040/- for the purpose of calculation, i.e. Rs.12480/- per annum. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of `16' to assess the compensation, which is correct and adequate keeping in view the age of the deceased. Thus, the compensation works out to Rs.1,99680/- (12480 x 16). A sum of Rs.20,000/- is also allowed on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate etc. In this manner, the appellants are awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,19,680/-. The enhanced compensation shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest shall be the same as has been fixed by the Tribunal. The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. December 3,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge