FAO Nos.4703 and 5394 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4703 of 2010 (O&M) (in MACT Case No.13 of 2009) Date of Decision : 17.11.2011 IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Amar Kaur and others .......Respondents FAO No.5394 of 2010 (O&M) (in MACT Case No.13 of 2009) Date of Decision : 17.11.2011 Amar Kaur .......Appellant Versus Darshan Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Raj Karan, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.4703 of 2010. and for respondent No.3 in FAO No.5394 of 2010 (IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.) Mr. Pankaj Katia, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No.5394 of 2010 and for respondent No.1 in FAO No.4703 of 2010. (Amar Kaur-claimant) Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the respondents-driver and owner. Mr. Vishal Chaudhri, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 in both appeals. (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) 1 FAO Nos.4703 and 5394 of 2010 (O&M) JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. This judgment of mine shall dispose of two appeals bearing FAO Nos.4703 and 5394 of 2010 as having arisen out of the same accident and the same impugned Award dated 03.04.2010. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that 5.12.2008 at about 7.00 p.m., Lakhvir Singh, since deceased, was going to Morinda from his house along with Karamjit Singh alias Kaka, on motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-12-11(T) 9564, driven by Lakhvir Singh himself. In the meanwhile, a Mahindra Pick-up van bearing No.PB-10-BH-1771, which was being driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at a high speed, came from Morinda side and struck against the motorcycle. As a result thereof, Lakhvir Singh sustained multiple and grievous injuries and he died at the spot. Karamjit Singh also sustained multiple and grievous injuries. FIR No.186 dated 5.12.2008 under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A, IPC was registered at Police Station Morinda. In this background, a claim petition was filed by the claimant-appellant, Amar Kaur, mother of Lakhvir Singh, deceased, before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned Award dated 3.4.2010, granted a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved against the Award dated 3.4.2010, FAO No.4703 of 2010 has been filed by the insurer for setting aside the same, and FAO No.5394 of 2010 has been filed by the claimant-Amar Kaur, seeking enhancement of the amount awarded as compensation. 2 FAO Nos.4703 and 5394 of 2010 (O&M) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The deceased, Lakhvir Singh, was 48 years of age at the time of his death in the accident. The claimant is his mother, aged 64 years. The learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased while applying the multiplier of 10. In Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 950, Hon’ble the Apex Court has held as under:- “12. .......... Insofar as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied keeping in view the age of the deceased. The argument is devoid of any substance. In a case where the age of the claimant is higher than the age of the deceased, the age of claimant and not the age of the deceased has to be taken into account for the capitalization of the list dependency. It is so because the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher.” As already observed, in the present case, the age of the claimant is more than the age of the deceased. The learned Tribunal fell into error in not taking the age of the claimant as a basis for applying the multiplier of 10. Therefore, by applying the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi 3 FAO Nos.4703 and 5394 of 2010 (O&M) Transport Corporation, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77, the correct multiplier to be applied in the present case is 7. It is held accordingly. In this view of the matter, the compensation on account of dependency comes to Rs.1,68,000/- as against the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. A further perusal of the impugned Award reveals that only a meager amount Rs.2,000/- has been awarded under the head ‘funeral expenses’ which in the opinion of this Court is inadequate. Moreover, nothing has been granted by the learned Tribunal against the head ‘loss of estate’. This Court feels that the ends of justice would be appropriately met in case the compensation under the heads ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel of the above discussion, FAO Nos.4703 and 5394 of 2010 are disposed of and the compensation of Rs.2,42,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,88,000/-. The respondent shall be entitled to the interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the present appeal till its realization. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 17.11.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 4