FAO No. 4250 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 4250 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.3.2010 Smt. Geeta and others ... Appellants vs Vijay Kumar and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rakesh Lathwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for the Insurance company. Rajesh Bindal J. This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). Briefly the facts as mentioned in the award of the learned Tribunal are that on 24.9.2005 at about 10.30 p.m., when Ranbir Singh was going to Village Chandi, he was hit by TATA-407 No. HR-46A/4398 in the vicinity of the bus stop of Village Chandi. The offending vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1 at a high speed, in rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, Ranbir Singh died on the way to the PGIMS, Rohtak. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants/ appellants filed petition for compensation which was allowed by the learned Tribunal. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. After applying cut of 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased, compensation of Rs. 3,94,000/- was granted to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants are before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that 1/3rd cut applied by the Tribunal as personal expenses of the deceased is on higher side as widow, mother and three minor children were dependent on him. The cut should be 1/4th. To support his contention, he relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that compensation of Rs. 10,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal on account of funeral expenses, loss to the estate and consortium is not adequate. The prayer is for further enhancement of compensation on that account also. FAO No. 4250 of 2009 -2- While not disputing the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, learned counsel for the Insurance company submitted that application of cut is correct, which does not call for any interference. He further submitted that fair amount has been awarded to the appellants on the other heads also. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) laid down certain guide-lines for the purpose of calculation of compensation in the form of determination of dependency and application of multiplier. The relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one- third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. xx xx xx 42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P.SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” The admitted salary of the deceased in the present case is Rs. 3,000/- per month. The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the application of FAO No. 4250 of 2009 -3- 1/3rd cut on income on account of personal expenses and grant of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of funeral expenses, loss to the estate and consortium. The learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd income for personal expenses of the deceased and considering his age applied 16 as multiplier and granted Rs. 3,84,000/- as compensation to the claimants. In total the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 3,94,000/- as compensation. Since in the present case the deceased, who was the sold bread earner of the family, had left behind, his mother, widow and three minor children, the cut of 1/4th should have been applied as against 1/3rd, in terms of Sarla Verma's (supra), wherein it was held that in case the dependent family members are between 4 to 6, a cut of 1/4th is required to be applied. Considering the aforesaid facts, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent of determination of dependency. Accordingly, after deducting 1/4th amount from Rs. 3,000/- on account of personal expenses, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 2,250/-. The annual dependency of the deceased comes to Rs. 27,000/-. As the application of 16 as multiplier is not disputed by either of the parties, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,32,000/- as against Rs. 3,84,000/-. The appellants are also granted Rs. 12,000/- more on account of funeral expenses, loss to the estate and consortium. In total, the claimants are awarded compensation of Rs. 4,44,000/-. The total enhanced amount of compensation comes out to Rs. 50,000/- (4,44,000 - 3,94,000= 50,000/-). The enhanced compensation shall be shared and dealt with in the same manner as directed by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 18.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge