In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.1283 of 2008 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:1.5.2008 United India Insurance Company Limited .....Appellant v. Neena Ghai and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 29.1.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Ad hoc), Patiala (`Tribunal' – for short) whereby the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' – for short) filed by the claimants-respondents has been accepted. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 29.1.2008 granted permission to the appellant- Insurance Company in terms of Section 170 of the Act to file the present appeal. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in allowing the petition as there was no negligence on the part of the truck which is alleged to be the offending vehicle. It is submitted that the accident occurred during day time on the G.T. road and, therefore, the fact that the truck was parked in the middle is inconsequential as the car driver could easily see the same. In any case, it is submitted that the compensation F.A.O. No.1283/2008 (O&M) [2] awarded is grossly high as the deceased was 57 years of age at the time of death and, therefore, the multiplier of five or at the most six was liable to be applied whereas multiplier of seven has been applied. In support of his contention learned counsel cites New India Assurance Company Ltd . v. Shanti Pathak and others, 2007 ACJ 2188 (SC). It is also contended that except for the mother, the other claimants are not entitled to any compensation as they are well settled in life. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The accident in the present case occurred on 28.12.2004. Panna Lal Ghai (deceased) along with his wife Neena Ghai (respondent No.1) and his driver, namely, Sarwan Singh were travelling in their Maruti car. The car was driven by Sarwan Singh and Panna Lal Ghai (deceased) was sitting on the front seat. His wife Neena Ghai (respondent No.1) was sitting on the rear seat. Near Kalyan Farm cut, the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road and its driver Girdhari Lal Joshi (respondent No.5) had not given any indication in this regard. The driver of the car went towards the left side of the road to give pass to a bus that was overtaking the car, the car dashed in the loaded stationary offending truck. On account of the accident which occurred due to negligent parking of the offending truck by Girdhari Lal Joshi (respondent No.5), Panna Lal died. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record held that Panna Lal Ghai died as a result of rash and negligent act of the truck driver Girdhari Lal Joshi (respondent No.5). The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the truck was parked in the middle of the road during day time and, therefore, was clearly visible and the act of negligence cannot be fastened on the truck driver is without F.A.O. No.1283/2008 (O&M) [3] basis. The Grand Trunk Road near Karnal is a busy highway and the drivers are not expected to park their vehicles in the middle of the road and that too without giving any indication. In a moving traffic, the truck has to be either off the road or keep moving and is not to be parked in the middle of the road. The mere fact that it was day time and the driver of the car could have easily seen the vehicle does not mitigate the gross negligence of the truck driver. As regards the compensation that has been awarded, it may be noticed that the salary of the deceased was Rs.24,293/-, the dependency of the claimants was taken to Rs.16,000/- per month. A multiplier of seven was applied and the compensation was assessed at Rs.13.44 Lacs along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. The contention of the learned counsel that a multiplier of six is liable to be applied is based on the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak and others (supra). In the said case, the deceased was 52 years of age and the Tribunal had adopted the multiplier of 13, which was upheld by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the multiplier has to be 8 instead of 13. In the present case, as has already been noticed, the multiplier of seven has been applied and the deceased Panna Lal Ghai was 57 years old. Therefore, in the circumstances, the multiplier of seven that has been applied is just and proper and calls for no interference. The contention that the claimants other than the mother are well settled is not of much significance. Learned counsel has referred to the deposition of Neena Ghai who appeared as PW-1. A perusal of her affidavit as reproduced in the grounds of appeal shows that she was orthopaedically F.A.O. No.1283/2008 (O&M) [4] handicapped and suffering from 60% permanent disability of left upper and lower limb. It is stated that she was unable to walk without any support. In her cross-examination, it is stated that she was working as Assistant in Canal and Irrigation Department and getting salary of Rs.17,000/- per month. She has 33 years of service to her credit. Besides, her service was pensionable and she was going to retire in April 2007. The claim of the claimants is on account of the demise of Panna Lal Ghai in a motor vehicles accident. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation on account of the death of Panna Lal Ghai. The compensation has been assessed to the extent of Rs.13.44 Lacs and thereafter it has been apportioned amongst the claimants. If the claimants have any dispute inter se regarding apportionment of the same, they can resolve the same amongst themselves. However, the appellant Insurance Company is not entitled to re-assess the compensation. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. May 1, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes