FAO No. 786 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 786 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.4.2010 Usha and others .. Appellants v. Om Parkash and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. B. R. Rana, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The claimants are in appeal against the award dated 1.9.1988, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby on account of the death of Surjit Singh, the claimants have been awarded Rs. 1,44,000/- as compensation. Briefly, the facts are that on 4.7.1987, deceased-Surjit Singh along with one Sunder Pal was standing at the bus stand and was waiting for the bus. In the meantime, driver of bus No. HRU 8441 suddenly took the bus in reverse condition without taking any precaution, as a result of which the bus hit Surjit Singh, who sustained injuries and ultimately died. The claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,650/- per month and applying the cut of Rs. 850/-, which is more than 50%, and applying the multiplier of 15, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,44,000/- as compensation. It is against this award that the claimants are before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that considering the age of the deceased and his carry home salary, the learned Tribunal has not applied appropriate cut and the multiplier, while determining the compensation. It has also FAO No. 786 of 1989 [2] not taken into consideration that the deceased in the present case was a permanent government servant. He would have risen further in his career. His salary would have increased manifold till his retirement. However, his career was cut short on account of unfortunate death and the family was left behind to suffer. He further submitted that nothing has been awarded on account of loss of consortium, transportation and funeral expenses. Reliance was placed upon Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that appropriate amount of compensation has already been paid to the claimants after application of appropriate cut and the multiplier. No body knows what will happen in future. To assess and award compensation merely on assumption would not be appropriate. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the deceased in the present case was working as Land Valuation Officer in Primary Cooperative Agriculture Bank Ltd., Punahana. At the time of accident, he was 32 years of age. His salary proved on record was Rs. 1,650/- per month. He left behind his widow and two minor daughters. The accident in question and the negligence of the driver is not in dispute, as the respondents have not preferred any appeal against the impugned award. It is only the claimants, who have come in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down certain principles with regard to application of cut for personal expenses and addition of amount in the salary on account of future prospects. Considering the age of the deceased, 50% can certainly be added in his income towards future prospects. Adding Rs. 825/- to the salary of Rs. 1,650/-, the amount will come out to Rs. 2,475/- per month. Considering the number of dependents, being widow and two minor children, the deduction should have been 1/3rd, i.e., after reducing a sum of Rs. 825/- from Rs. 2,475/-, the monthly dependency would come out to Rs. 1,650/- and the annual dependency will be Rs. 19,800/-. If multiplier of 16 is applied thereon, the amount of compensation would come out to Rs. 3,16,800/-, to which another sum of Rs. 3,200/- is added on account of transportation, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. The total amount of compensation, so assessed, comes out to Rs. 3,20,000/-, which the appellants shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount @6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realisation. The amount of enhanced compensation shall be divided amongst the claimants in the same proportion, as directed by the Tribunal. FAO No. 786 of 1989 [3] The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.4.2010 mk