LPA No. 614 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 614 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.03.2010 Manjit Kaur and others ....Appellants. Versus Avtar Singh and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate for the appellants. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is filed assailing the order dated 1.2.2002 passed by learned Single Judge in FAO No.960 of 1987. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that Manjit Singh was returning on scooter from Gurdwara on G.T. Road bypass, Karnal with his brother-in-law Devinder Singh, sitting on the pillion seat. A tractor bearing registration No.HYL 2857 being driven rashly and negligently by Avtar Singh –respondent No.1 hit the scooter from behind and dragged the scooter and the scooterist ahead by a few metres before coming to a halt. Manjit Singh, aged 30 years was declared brought dead on being removed to the Civil Hospital, Karnal. As per the petition, Manjit Singh was a technician and was self-employed and earning a sum of Rs.1800/- per month. The LPA No. 614 of 2002 2 appellants being totally dependent upon him, claimed Rs.3 lacs. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 being driver and owner of the tractor, contested the claim saying that tractor was not being driven by respondent No.1. In fact, it was being driven by Gurbachan Singh – respondent No.4. They found the deceased lying on the road in injured condition and out of sheer fellow feelings, they stopped the tractor and removed the injured to the Civil Hospital, Karnal and they were falsely implicated in the case. 4. The Insurance Company – respondent No.3 also contested the claim petition on the ground that the person, who was driving the tractor at the relevant time, was not having valid driving license and it was the deceased himself, who was responsible for the rash and negligent driving. Respondent No.4 also filed written statement and contested the claim. 5. Learned Tribunal allowed the petition having found that the deceased was 30 years of age and was earning Rs.1200/- per month i.e. Rs.14,400/- per year. Learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd from the total income of the deceased for his own maintenance and found that net loss to the petitioners, who are legal heirs of the deceased, comes to Rs.9600/- per year. Learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and directed to pay Rs.1,53,600/- to the claimants with interest @ 12% from the date of petition till realization. Learned Tribunal also directed that the amount shall be apportioned between respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in the terms that respondent No.3 would pay Rs.1,50,000/- and respondent No.1 shall pay Rs.3600/-. 6. Learned Single Judge in appeal arising from the award of the Tribunal, found annual income of the deceased at Rs.21,600/- and dependency at 2/3rd i.e. Rs.14,400/- and having applied multiplier of 16, directed to pay Rs.2,30,400/- to the claimants. Learned Single Judge also LPA No. 614 of 2002 3 directed that the claimants shall be entitled to 12% interest as directed by learned Tribunal, on Rs.1,53,600/- and 9% interest on the additional enhanced compensation. However, learned Single Judge also recorded a finding that issue as to whether driver was having a valid driving license or not requires reconsideration and directed the Tribunal to decide this issue afresh and to fix the liability. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that undisputedly the age of the deceased was 30 years, hence multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. Learned Single Judge has committed illegality by applying multiplier of 16. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that fixing the dependency of 2/3rd on the annual income of the deceased is wrong. Rather dependency should be 90% because deduction of 10% suffices. However, learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute the annual income of the deceased fixed. 10. This is settled position of law that any earning member of the family would be utilizing expenditure 1/3rd of his income for himself. Hence, dependency fixed 2/3rd by the Courts below does not call for any interference. Finding on the question of annual income seems to be correct and does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Undisputedly, the deceased was 30 years of age, hence as per Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, multiplier of 17 should be applied for age group of 26 to 30 years. Multiplying 14,400/- by 17, would be Rs.2,44,800/- . We find that claimants are entitled to Rs.2,44,800/-. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that LPA No. 614 of 2002 4 remanding the matter to the Tribunal on the issue as to whether the driver was having valid driving license or not on the date of accident, will cause unnecessary delay in getting the compensation. 13. We have perused the record carefully. It is nowhere mentioned that the owner was aware about the fact that the driver was not having a valid driving licence or fake licence. Moreover, the issue as to whether the driver was having valid license or not, was not pressed before learned Tribunal. In appeal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company should not be permitted to argue on the same issue, which was not pressed before the Tribunal. 14. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,44,800/- by applying multiplier of 17. Claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. Remand of the matter by learned Single Judge to the Tribunal to decide the question as to whether the driver was having valid driving licence on the date of accident, cannot be sustained. 15. In view of the above, present appeal is disposed of with the direction that the appellants shall be paid compensation of Rs.2,44,800/- with interest @ 9% from the date of the petition till the date of realization, by respondent No.3. 16. Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 04.03.2010 sk.