FAO No.1050 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1050 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : November 27, 2009 Smt.Sushila and others ... Appellants VERSUS Krishan Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Anil Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr.Rajesh Malik, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for respondent – Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the award dated 2.5.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (herein referred as `the Tribunal'), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.7,70,230/- to the appellants – claimants (herein referred as the claimants), on account of the death of Harbir Singh in a motor vehicle accident. No appeal has been preferred by the respondent – Insurance Company. However, the claimants have come up in appeal for FAO No.1050 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] enhancement of compensation. The only point raised by the claimants is that even if the claim is settled on the income, as determined by the tribunal, then the deceased being 28 years of age, the multiplier of `17' should have been applied and the compensation should have been awarded on the higher side. The Tribunal fell into error while applying the multiplier of 10 in this case. Reliance was placed by the appellants over the decision of the Apex Court in case Smt.Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR(Civil) 77, wherein, it was observed that in case a person dies between the age of 21 to 30 years, multiplier of 17 would be appropriate to be applied in such a case. As regards the other contention with regard to awarding of the interest on the lower side, it needs mention that it has been so awarded by the Tribunal while exercising its discretion, which cannot be interfered. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent Company has urged that negligence has not been proved by the claimants, therefore, the claim petition should have been treated under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. This contention is misconceived as neither the petition was filed under Section 163-A, nor it could be automatically converted as such. The Tribunal could not set out or provide the favour for claiming compensation. In case of application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the element of negligence is required to be proved, but in case under Section 163-A of the Act, the Tribunal is to find out if the accident took place on account of the Motor Vehicle. Scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the driver while driving the bus hit the divider, which leaves no FAO No.1050 of 2008(O&M) [ 3 ] iota of doubt that he was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. In view of the above, while not interfering in the annual net dependency of Rs.75,360/-, as determined by the Tribunal, the multiplier of 17 is applied, particularly when the deceased was 28 years old. Thus, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.12,81,120/- (75360 x 17). However, amount awarded under other Heads as also the terms of the impugned award shall remain intact. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in the above terms. However, it is clarified that if the claimants have received any benefit from the Government other then the pensionary benefits, the Insurance Company would be entitled to raise that objection before the Executing Court. No order as to costs. November 27, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE