FAO No.3555 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3555 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2011 Smt.Lalita and others ...Appellant(s) Versus Anoop Singh and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate for appellant(s). Mr.Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr.Suvir Dewan, Advocate, for respondent No.6. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. CM Nos.15616-17-CII of 2010 Reply to the application for condonation of delay is taken on record. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed. The delay of 114 days in filing the appeal and delay of 274 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Main case The present appeal is directed against the award dated 8.8.2008, passed by the by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short `the Tribunal), whereby the claim petition of the appellants was accepted. FAO No.3555 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The facts leading to the present appeal are that one BineshKumar, who met with his death in a motor car accident on 16.8.2005 when he was travelling in vehicle Max bearing registration No.HR-55C 4498, which was driven by Jeet Bahadur-respondent No.4 in a rash and negligent driving. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident and leaving behind him wife, two minor children and old parents. The learned Tribunal, after considering evidence on record and hearing both the parties, awarded the compensation of `5,70,800,/- alongwith interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum to the claimants. Hence, the claimants/appellants have preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of the awarded compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased was employed with M/s Dagar Grit Udyog at Gurgaon and had been drawing a salary of `8000-9000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as `4,000/-. He further submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the dependency as 1/3rd, whereas it should have been 1/4th. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed monthly income of the deceased as `4,000/- does not find any substance as he has not been able to substantiate his assertion by producing any evidence. FAO No.3555 of 2010 (O&M) 3 So far as deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, I feel that the guidelines framed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court help in the matter. As per the guidelines framed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above cited case, where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-fourth if the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. In the instant case, the claimants are in number 5, who are dependent on the income of the deceased. In the fact situation, I feel that the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd Considering the above factual position, it would be appropriate to deduct the 1/4th amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased after deducting 1/4 amount comes to `36,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 17, the amount works out to be `6,12, 000/. It is stated that a sum of `5,70,500/- has been deposited pursuant to the award dated 8.8.2008 including a sum of `20,000/- towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, enhanced compensation comes to `61,200/- (6,12,000-5,50,800/-), which is rounded of `61,000/-. The enhanced amount shall be paid by the respondents within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, as the manner indicated in the impugned award. If the enhanced amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest @7 ½% per annum. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extend indicated above. 07.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE