IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No.3787 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.9.2011 Arti Devi and another. ....... Appellants through Shri Vikram Bali, Advocate. Versus Sanjeev Jain and another. ....... Respondent no.2 through Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate. None for respondent no.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J. This appeal, preferred against the award dated 31.8.2009 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, (for short `the Tribunal') is accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act because it was filed with a delay of 69 days. It is claimed that appellant no.1 had suffered from the death of her son and had to take care of appellant no.2, her daughter-in-law. It is further claimed that appellant no.1 was having financial constraints and as she was in deep grief, she could not arrange for the money to engage a counsel for filing the appeal. The averments made in the F.A.O. No.3787 of 2010 (O&M) -2- .... application are supported by an affidavit of appellant no.1. Respondent no.1 has not appeared despite service, whereas no reply to the application has been filed by respondent no.2. Having regard to the reasons given therein, the application is accepted and delay of 69 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appellants are mother and widow of Jai Parkash who died in a vehicular accident that took place on 2.5.2006. The Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.4,76,000/- to the appellants vide award dated 31.8.2009 and a prayer for enhancement thereof has been made in the appeal. The facts, in brief, required for disposal of the appeal are as under:- On the fateful day, at about 9.30 P.M., Jai Parkash along with his cousin brother Sandeep Ratauri was going on motorcycle bearing registration no. CH-03-S-3654 towards Sector 12, Panchkula. Sandeep Ratauri was driving the motorcycle while Jai Parkash was riding its pillion. When they were near Sector 12, a car bearing registration no. HR-03-4840 driven by respondent no.1 came from their back side and hit rear portion of the motorcycle on account of which they fell down and suffered injuries. Jai Parkash received head injury on account of which he died at the spot. F.I.R. No.60 was lodged at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula under sections 279/304-A of the I.P.C. In the claim petition filed by the appellants, it was averred that the deceased was aged 24 years and was working as a cook at Chaman Food, Sector 7, Panchkula and was getting F.A.O. No.3787 of 2010 (O&M) -3- .... approximately Rs.6200/- per month. The respondents had resisted the claim petition. Respondent no.1, the owner -cum- driver of the offending vehicle, questioned the manner of the accident and denied the allegation that it occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on his part, the amount of compensation claimed by the appellants was stated to be highly excessive. Respondent no.2, the insurance company had also disputed the factum of accident and alleged that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving licence and he violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The petition was also claimed to be collusive between the appellants and respondent no.1. As another claim petition was filed by Sandeep Ratauri who had also sustained injuries in the accident, both these petitions were consolidated and following consolidated issues were framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether Jai Parkash had died and Sandeep Ratauri had suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Ascent Car bearing Temporary No. CH12-T-4722 by respondent no.1, as alleged?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, if so to what F.A.O. No.3787 of 2010 (O&M) -4- .... amount?OPR2 4. Relief. Learned Tribunal has decided the aforesaid claim petitions vide the award dated 31.8.2009 and has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.4,76,000/- in favour of the appellants out of which a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been given to appellant no.1 and the remaining amount has been ordered to be paid to appellant no.2. Since in this appeal the quantum of compensation has only been questioned, learned counsel for the parties have confined their submissions to this aspect and they have been heard by me. The first point on which learned counsel for the appellants has made submission is that of the multiplier. The multiplier applied by the Tribunal is of `17'. It is argued that the second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for brevity `the Act') though gives the multiplier of `17' for a case where the victim was aged 24 years, yet Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77 has held that the second schedule is defective and in paragraph 21 of the judgment, the multiplier suitable for the victims of the age group of 15 to 20 and 21to 25 years is held to be `18'. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. According to him, the amount awarded under these heads is also grossly inadequate. He has again referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla F.A.O. No.3787 of 2010 (O&M) -5- .... Verma's case (supra) where in paragraph 26, it has been held that the wife will be entitled to Rs.10000/- as loss of consortium and Rs.5000/- under the head `loss of estate' and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has although submitted that the multiplier applicable to this case is `17', has yet not cited another decision of a date later than the decision of Sarla Verma's case (supra) laying down otherwise. Keeping in view the ratio of Sarla Verma's case (supra) that the second schedule appended to the Act is defective and multiplier applicable to the case of death at the age of 24 years is `18', the compensation can be assessed in this case at Rs.4,96,800/- by working out the annual loss to the appellants and multiplying the same with `18'. To it, a sum of Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium, Rs.5000/- as loss of estate and Rs.5000/- as funeral expenses can be added and, therefore, the total compensation payable to the appellants comes to Rs.5,16,800/-. Consequently, the appeal is accepted. The appellants are held entitled to Rs.5,16,800/- as compensation. The amount enhanced vide this decision shall go to the share of appellant no.1, the mother of the deceased who has been paid grossly less amount by the Tribunal. September 13,2011 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) “SCM” JUDGE