FAO No.218 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.218 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: November 27, 2012 Rajinder Kumari and others ... Appellants Versus Dharambir etc. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Rana, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rajan Gupta, J. Appellants have impugned the award passed by the tribunal on the limited ground that compensation granted is on the lower side. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that tribunal has erred by assessing compensation. It applied a multiplier of 11 while appropriate multiplier would be 13 keeping in view age of the deceased. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that adequate compensation has been granted by the tribunal after taking into account facts and circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Accident occurred on 12.6.2010. Satish Kumar was driving the motor cycle in question. Deceased Raj Kumar was a pillion rider. At that time a truck came from Sadhora side and struck in the motor cycle from rear side. Both the occupants of motor cycle were knocked down. FAO No.218 of 2012 2 Raj Kumar was crushed under the tyres of the truck. He died on the spot. A claim petition was lodged by widow and children of deceased Raj Kumar. Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle. In the absence of proof regarding income, tribunal assessed the same as Rs.3500/- per month. It felt that 1/3rd from the said amount needed to be deducted on account of expenses for personal use. Calculated in this manner dependency would come to Rs.28,000/- per annum. Even if plea of appellants is accepted and multiplier of 13 is applied, compensation would come to Rs.3,64,000/-. Tribunal has, however, granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,69,600/-. Apparently, there is an error in the impugned award. While tribunal has mentioned that 1/3rd of the amount needed to be deducted as expenses for personal use, it has in fact, deducted 1/5th. In the eventuality plea of higher multiplier is to be accepted but cut of 1/3rd actually applied, compensation would actually reduced. However, in the absence of any appeal by insurance company, this court is not inclined to reduce the compensation. This appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 27, 2012 'rajpal'