FAO No.5327 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5327 of 2010 (in Petition No.21-MACT of 2009) Date of Decision : 03.11.2011 Smt. Ranjit Kaur and others .......Appellants Versus Buta Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Mohan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant- appellants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad, vide Award dated 22.3.2010. Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case are that on 09.01.2009, Hardeep Singh @ Happy, since deceased, was going to Baliala from Ratia along with his grand father, Dalip Singh, in a bus 1 FAO No.5327 of 2010 bearing No.HR-62/3799, which was being driven by respondent No.1, Buta Singh, the driver, in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus reached near the pipe factory on Ratia-Budhlada road, the respondent- driver tried to overtake the bus going ahead of it and took a sudden turn. Resultantly, he lost control over the bus and the front window got opened. The deceased, who was standing near the front window also lost his balance and fell down from the bus. He was run over by the rear tyre of the bus resulting into his death at the spot. In these circumstance, the claimants-appellants No.1 to 4, being mother, father and younger minor brothers of the deceased, preferred claim petition seeking compensation. After hearing rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, framing the issues and giving issue-wise findings, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition qua claimant-petitioner Nos.2 to 4; and while partly accepting the claim of claimant-petitioner No.1, awarded him compensation to the tune of `3,05,000/-, under different heads. Aggrieved against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimants-appellants have come in appeal before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. A perusal of the record would reveal that the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of his death in the accident. The claimant-appellants are his mother, father and two minor brothers. 2 FAO No.5327 of 2010 As regards the appeal of appellant Nos.2 to 4, against the dismissal of the claim petition qua them, the learned Tribunal observed that appellant No.2 had been maintaining himself and other members of the family since the time he had become disabled, when the deceased was about 6-7 years of age. Therefore, the Tribunal held that claimant-appellant Nos.2 to 4 were not dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death as it was not believable that the father was dependent on the deceased since he was only 7 years old. After giving my thoughtful consideration on this aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition qua claimant Nos.2 to 4 and no interference is called for on this point. Accordingly, the present appeal qua appellant Nos.2 to 4 fails and is hereby dismissed. The deceased, Hardeep Singh @ Happy was 18 years of age at the time of his death. He was unmarried. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at `3,000/- treating him as an unskilled person. However, as provided in the Notification No.10664-774 dated 31.03.2009, issued by the Labour Department, Government of Haryana, under the Minimum Wages Act, the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been taken as `3,840/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. The age of Smt. Ranjit Kaur was 38 years at the time of the accident and thus, the multiplier of 15 is correctly applied in view of the age of the parents of the deceased, who was a bachelor. The learned Tribunal has assessed the dependency as 50%, while placing reliance on the findings recorded by Hon’ble the 3 FAO No.5327 of 2010 Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77. Para 15 of the judgment reads as under:- “Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In record to bachelor, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal 4 FAO No.5327 of 2010 and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” In the present case, the deceased left behind his parents and two younger minor brothers. A perusal of the disability certificate, Ex.P5, would reveal that appellant No.2, the father of the deceased, is physically disabled to the extent of 70%. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case and placing reliance on the last few lines of para 15 of Sarla Verma’s case (supra), viz., “…However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”, this Court is of the considered opinion that although the composition of the family is not large, yet the circumstances warrant that the case be dealt with compassion. Accordingly, the deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased is assessed as 1/3rd in place of ½. The amount of compensation awarded under the various conventional heads is just and reasonable and is not disturbed. In view of the above discussion, the appellant No.1 is held entitled to the enhanced compensation of ` 1,55,800/- [`4,60,800/- (2560X12X15) – ` 3,05,000/-], which shall be paid to appellant No.1, Ranjit Kaur, the mother of the deceased, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this 5 FAO No.5327 of 2010 judgment, failing which, she shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization. The appeal qua appellant No.1 is partly allowed and the Award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 03.11.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 6