FAO No. 3517 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3517 of 2007 Decided on : 05-12-2008 Jasvir Kaur and others ....Appellants VERSUS Ghansham Lal and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. N.C.Sahni, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for respondent no.4. MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, dated 4.4.2007. In an accident which took place on 28.5.2005, Ranjit Singh lost his life and the claim petition was preferred by his widow and two minor children. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month and assessed the dependency as Rs.2000/- by applying a cut of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses. A multiplier of 12 was applied keeping in view the age of the deceased as 44 years to arrive at a figure of Rs.2,88,000/-. An amount of Rs.5000/- was awarded on account of funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.7,000/- on account of loss estate. Therefore, the claimants were held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3 lacs which was directed to apportioned amongst claimants in the ratio of Rs.50,000/- each for the child and Rs.2,00,000/- to the widow respectively. FAO No. 3517 of 2007 2 Dis-satisfied with the award, the appellants are in appeal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants with reference to the evidence on record that the deceased was employed as Estate Supervisor in the College by the name of Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College of Education, Dasuya and he was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/-. Reference was made to the testimony of Bakhtawar Singh, Superintendent AW1 who testified and proved the joining report which are on record as Ex. A1 and A.2 and the certificate regarding the salary which is on record as Ex. A.3 indicating that deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. On the strength of this it was contended that even though the deceased had worked for 27 days but the factum of his salary being Rs.10,000/- cannot be denied and compensation be determined keeping in view this figure. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company on the other hand contended that the entire record is fabricated and that the deceased worked only for 27 days. Besides, it has been noticed in the award itself that there were only 5 employees in the college but the attendance register brought by the concerned witness consists of only two names i.e Surinder singh Saini and Ranjit Singh. It was further contended that the attendance register was blank and that AW1 Bakhtawar Singh has clearly stated that the deceased was having an experience of driving heavy vehicles and at best he can be treated as driver and not Estate Supervisor as pleaded by the appellants. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the award deserves to be modified. The plea as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month does not appear to FAO No. 3517 of 2007 3 be correct. The only qualification that the deceased had shown before the college authorities is that he is qualified to drive heavy vehicles and is not qualified for Supervisor. Besides, it is not conceivable that an office Superintendent could be drawing salary of Rs.8500/- per month whereas the deceased with qualification of driver would be drawing more salary than him i.e. Rs.10,000/- as it has come in the testimony of AW1 Bakhtawar Singh, Superintendent that he was drawing salary of Rs.8500/-. In this view of the matter, the evidence on which reliance is sought to be placed by the appellant does not seem to be trustworthy and the same is discarded. In any eventuality, there is evidence on record to show that the deceased was having sufficient experience in driving heavy vehicles and was working in Jordan prior to this. He was also looking after the land of the relations which is not proved on record. Consequently, the only aspect to be seen is that whether he can be assessed as semi-skilled worker and as a driver. In the considered opinion of this Court, even a labourer these days is earning Rs.3000/- per month. Therefore, the deceased being assessed as a driver of heavy vehicles, it would be safe to assess his income as Rs.6,000/- per month. He was survived by his widow and two children. Therefore, a cut of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses would be just and appropriate and dependency in this manner comes to Rs. 4000/- per month i.e. 48000/- per annum. The deceased was aged 44 years therefore, multiplier of 15 would be just and appropriate in the given set of circumstances, which is also in accordance with the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act which is the guiding factor. Compensation in this manner comes to Rs.,7,20,000/-. An amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded on account of funeral expenses. The rest FAO No. 3517 of 2007 4 of the amount does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs. 7,37,000/- (Rs.10000 + Rs.7000+Rs. 720000). The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of its realisation. The liability to pay the amount shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms and the award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. December 5 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge