FAO No. 2487 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 2487 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.2.2010 Smt. Anita and others ... Appellants vs Subhash Chand and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1, 2, and 4. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent nos. 3 and 5. Rajesh Bindal J. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 1.4.2008 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). The brief facts of the case are that on 23.10.2006, Udai Parkash, who was working as a driver with M/s ACTL, ICD through the contractor M/s Jupiter Enterprises, was going on a motorcycle from Palwal to Ballabgarh and had reached Elson Cotton Mills, an Alto Car came from Ballabgarh side at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The car was in the process of turning towards Sohna side then a Tata 709 was going towards Delhi. Both the vehicles collided and due to this, the car after hitting the Tata 709 turned round and stuck against the diesel tank of Tata 709. Udai Parkash, who was coming from Palwal side got entangled in the accident. He sustained multiple injuries all over his body. The driver of both the vehicles fled away from the spot leaving their vehicles. Udai Parkash was admitted in the hospital at Ballabgarh and from there he was shifted to Faridabad where he died on 3.11.2006. The age of the deceased at the time of death was 33 years. FIR was registered. The claimants filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal which was allowed. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants are before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased is not correct, which should have been 16 and not 12 as applied by it. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that 1/3rd cut applied by the Tribunal as FAO No. 2487 of 2008 -2- 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. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that earlier Udai Parkash (since deceased) was admitted in General Hospital, Ballabgarh from where he was shifted to Faridabad where he succumbed to his injuries on 3.11.2006. He remained admitted in the hospital from 23.10.2006 till he expired. It was submitted that a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- were spent on the treatment but the Tribunal has only granted a sum of Rs. 2,47,628/-. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that much more than what the claimants deserved, has been awarded by the learned Tribunal after applying the multiplier of 12 which, in fact, deserves to be reduced. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal has calculated the compensation on the basis of structured formula and deducted 1/3rd amount on account of personal expenses which cannot be termed on higher side. Further submission was that the claimants had produced on record bills amounting to Rs. 2,47,628/- and same amount has been granted by the Tribunal. In totality considering the evidence on record, the award of the Tribunal is justified and deserves no modification. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. The salary of the deceased in the present case is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the application of multiplier, cut on income on account of personal dependency and grant of compensation on account of treatment. The deceased left behind widow, mother and three minor children. It is admitted case of the parties that the deceased was 33 years of age at the time of accident and considering his age at the time of accident, in terms of Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier of 16 is required to be applied instead of 12 as applied by the learned Tribunal. There is also merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that cut of 1/4th should have been applied as the deceased had left behind, his widow, mother, and three minor children. He was the sole bread earner of the family. In terms of Sarla Verma's (supra), where the dependent family members are between 4 to 6, a cut of 1/4th is required to be applied. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants for grant of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of treatment cannot be considered because they had produced on record treatment bills of Rs. 2,47,628/- and the amount has been granted by the Tribunal. FAO No. 2487 of 2008 -3- Considering the aforesaid facts, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent application of multiplier and cut. Accordingly, after deducting 1/4th amount on account of personal expenses and application of 16 as multiplier, the amount of compensation is assessed at Rs. 5,76,000/- as against Rs. 3,84,048/-. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent mentioned above. The amount of compensation granted under other heads is not disturbed nor the apportionment. The claimants/appellants shall be entitled interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 3.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge