IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 710 of 2003 Date of Decision: March 25,2008 Suman Lata Jain and others ...........Petitioners Versus Parveen Kumar and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Vinod Arya, Advocate for the appellants * * * Sabina, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 9.12.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of Gulshan Kumar Jain. The case of the claimants as stated in the claim petition was that on 3.7.2001, Gulshan Kumar Jain was travelling in vehicle No. JK- 02N-8517 from Jammu to Srinagar. The said vehicle was being driven by Malkit Singh in a rash and negligent manner. At about 3.30 A.M. when the said vehicle reached in the area of village Batoth, it fell into a nullah as a result of which Gulshan Kumar suffered multiple injuries and was admitted to Govt. Medical College and Hospital. Gulshan Kumar, however, succumbed to his injuries. The claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of untimely death of Gulshan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as` the deceased'). Learned Tribunal after framing the issues allowed the claim petition vide the impugned award. Aggrieved by the same, the FAO No. 710 of 2003 -2- claimants have filed the present appeal claiming enhancement of compensation. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. one lakh per year although as per Exhibit. P5, the latest income tax return filed by the deceased showed that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,45,990/- per year. The age of the deceased had also been wrongly assessed as 46 years by relying upon the post mortem report whereas reliance should have been placed on the date of birth certificate, Exhibit P8, according to which a the date of birth of the deceased was 12.3.1956. The Tribunal has further erred in applying a multiplier of 9, whereas a multiplier of 15 should have been applied. Learned counsel has further argued that interest at the rate of only 9% per annum had been allowed whereas it should have been at the rate of 12% per annum. Exhibit P5 is the income tax return form furnished by the deceased from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001. Exhibit P6 and P7 are the income tax return forms for the years 1999-2000 and 1998-99 respectively. A perusal of Exhibit P5 reveals that the income shown by the deceased for the year 2000-2001 was Rs.1,45,990/-. As such, the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. one lakh per year. In fact, the income of the deceased was liable to be assessed in terms of Exhibit P5 which was the latest income return filed by the deceased before the accident. The said return was submitted by the deceased on 21.8.2001. Out FAO No. 710 of 2003 -3- of this amount, the deceased must have been spending 1/3rd on himself and the remaining Rs.97000/- must have been available to the claimants towards their dependency. Learned Tribunal erred in applying a cut of 40%. It may be pertinent to notice that the deceased was maintaining his wife and four children. The annual dependency, thus, comes to Rs.97,000/-. The learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 9 whereas keeping in view the age of the deceased(as per Exhibit P8) the appropriate multiplier in this case is taken as 13. The compensation, thus, comes to Rs.12,61,000/-. The Tribunal has further allowed Rs. 10,000/- towards expenditure of transportation and Rs. 9500/- towards general damages. The total compensation payable to the claimants-appellants comes to Rs.12,80,500/- . The claimants shall share the amount of compensation equally. The share of minor claimants be invested in the FDR in some Nationalized Bank and the same be released to them on their attaining the age of 21 years. The learned Tribunal has allowed interest @ 9% per annum. The rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be lower side and calls for no interference. The respondents are directed to make the payment of enhanced amount of compensation within three months from today failing which the claimants would be entitled to claim interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realization. Appeal is allowed in the above mentioned terms. The Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 for compliance. ( Sabina ) March 25, 2008 Judge arya