F.A.O.No. 632 of 1986 & Cross-Obj.No.104-CII of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 632 of 1986 & Cross-Obj.No.104-CII of 1986 Date of decision : 3.11.2008 Duni Chand (since died) through L.Rs. ....Appellant Versus Neena & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mrs.Radhika Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.5. MAHESH GROVER, J. This order will dispose of F.A.O.No.632 of 1986 and Cross-Objection No.104-CII of 1986. Initially, the appeal was preferred by the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle jointly. Subsequently, vide orders dated 20.9.2006 the insurance company was transposed as respondent and the appeal survived only qua the owner of the vehicle. Duni Chand who was the owner of the vehicle died and on 17.8.2004 his legal representatives were brought on record who are now prosecuting the appeal. The accident in question took place on 3.6.1984 when F.A.O.No. 632 of 1986 & Cross-Obj.No.104-CII of 1986 -2- Gurmit Kumar, aged 24 years died. A claim petition was preferred by his parents and his widow. It was claimed by the claimants that the deceased was a tailor by profession and was working with his father in a shop. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month and after making deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses assessed the dependency at Rs.800/- per month and applied a multiplier of 10 to arrive at a figure of Rs.96,000/- which was apportioned in the following manner :- i) Neena (widow) Rs.26,000/- ii)Jagdish Singh(father) Rs.20,000/- iii)Sumitri Devi (mother) Rs.50,000/- It was directed by the Tribunal that in case the aforesaid amount of compensation was not paid within three months from the date of award then it was to be paid along with interest @ 12% from the date of award till the date of its realisation. During the pendency of the appeal, the insurance company deposited an amount of Rs.1,69,536/- which was the amount calculated according to the award but the said amount was not paid to the claimants which resulted in filing of C.M.No.17287-CII of 2004 pursuant to which the amount was directed to be released on 20.1.2006. The claimants have preferred the Cross-Objections seeking enhanced amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the F.A.O.No. 632 of 1986 & Cross-Obj.No.104-CII of 1986 -3- award of the Tribunal contended that it has come in evidence that the widow had remarried the brother of the deceased, therefore the apportionment of Rs.26,000/- in her favour could not have been made in view of the fact that she could not longer be considered to be either a dependent on the deceased or the legal representative of the deceased. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record I am of the opinion that the question that has been raised by the appellant in the given set of circumstances of the present case is merely academic. Viewed from any angle the compensation which has been awarded to the claimants is inadequate and even otherwise the apportionment in the name of the widow would have no bearing on the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as she is stated to have married within the family and also for the reason that the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 10 only which was probably because of the age of the parents. The deceased was said to be a tailor and therefore would come within the ambit of a skilled worker, but since there was no proof of any income, the Tribunal rightly assessed the same at Rs.1,200/- per month. However, the deduction of 1/3rd which has been applied is incorrect and in cases where the income is meager it is not necessary to resort to the deduction of 1/3rd strictly. It is also in evidence that the deceased was working with his father and was living jointly with him. In this view of the matter the deduction of Rs.200/- per month on his person would have been sufficient. The dependency F.A.O.No. 632 of 1986 & Cross-Obj.No.104-CII of 1986 -4- therefore is assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month or Rs.12,000/- per annum. A multiplier of 10 has been applied, which is just and also negatives the plea of the appellant. If the compensation had to be assessed keeping in view the interest of the widow then the application of higher multiplier was necessary but the Tribunal was conscious of the fact of remarriage and therefore lesser multiplier of 10 has been applied keeping in view the age and interest of the parents. In this manner, the compensation works out to Rs.1,20,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall now be paid to the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal also erred in not awarding interest from the date of filing of the petition. The amount awarded should have been from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. In this eventuality, the entire amount shall now be paid along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment made by the insurance company before the Tribunal as awarded by it and the enhanced amount of compensation @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. With the aforesaid modification in the award, the appeal stands dismissed and cross-objections stand allowed. 3.11.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss