FAO No. 225 of 1996 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 225 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.5.2010 Smt. Darshan Kaur and another ... Appellants vs J. K. State and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sourabh Garg, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents no. 1 and 2 despite service. Rajesh Bindal J. This appeal has been filed by, appellant no. 1, the mother of the deceased seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded to her by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) whereas appellant no. 2, father of the deceased, approached this court against the rejection of his claim. Briefly the facts as mentioned in the award of the learned Tribunal are that son of the appellants, Nachhattar Singh (since deceased) was working as a cleaner on truck bearing registration no. PBO-1781. On 30.4.1994 at about 4.30 a.m., he was coming from Pathankot to Jalandhar on truck, driven by respondent no. 6 Jagtar Singh. When the truck reached near Alman Mangat Bus Stop near Mukerian, a bus bearing registration no. JKY-1723, driven by respondent no. 3, in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite side, and hit against the truck. Due to this impact, they received multiple injuries. Nachhatar Singh succumbed to his injuries at the spot. The appellants filed claim petition. The learned Tribunal vide award dated 26.7.1995, granted a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the mother of the deceased whereas the claim of the father, appellant no. 2, was rejected on the ground that he could not prove himself to be the dependent of the deceased. Now the appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased Nachhatar Singh was aged 22 years at the time of accident. He was the sole bread earner of the family. It was submitted that the deceased was receiving Rs. 2,000/- per month as salary and Rs. 40/- per day for his meal charges i.e. Rs. 1,200/- per month. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal should FAO No. 225 of 1996 -2- have applied a cut of 50% after assessing his income at Rs. 3,200/- per month. It was also submitted that multiplier of 13 should have been applied considering the age of appellant no. 1 as 46 years. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no compensation on account of loss of consortium is granted to the appellants. The prayer is for grant of compensation on that account also. No one has appeared for respondents no. 1 and 2 despite service. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper-book. A perusal of the impugned award shows that no basis has been given for assessment of compensation. It is proved that the deceased was receiving Rs. 2,000/- per month as salary. The daily amount of Rs. 40/- given to him for meal charges cannot be said to be his income. No evidence had been led by the respondents despite opportunity having been granted. After deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual dependency will come to Rs. 12,000/-. Considering the age of the mother of the appellant as 46-47 years at the time of death, multiplier of 12 should be applied as per judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Accordingly, after applying multiplier of 12 (12,000 x 12= 1,44,000/-) the compensation is assessed at Rs. 1,44,000/-. To this another sum of Rs. 6,000/- is added on account of loss of consortium, funeral expenses, etc. The award of the Tribunal is modified to that extent. In total, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded as compensation to the mother of the deceased. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. No other point was urged. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 12.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge