FAO No.4148 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No.4148 of 2007 Date of decision:09.12.2008 Heerawati and others ......Appellants Versus Chhote Lal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate, for New India Insurance Company. **** JUDGMENT SABINA, J. This is an appeal against the award dated 1.6.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'. The case of the claimant, as stated in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 18.11.2004 Shambhu (since deceased) along with his father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law was travelling from Pinjore to village Bunga Tibbi in three-wheeler bearing registration No.HR-37-8908. When they reached near the turning point of Beer Ghaggar Chandimandir, Panchkula at about 9.00 a.m., a Tata-407 bearing registration No. HP 15-B-0215 came from Panchkula side FAO No.4148 of 2007 2 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the three-wheeler, by coming on the wrong side of the road. As a result of this the occupants of the three-wheeler suffered injuries. Injured Shambhu was rushed to Civil Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula and from there, he was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries. Claimants had suffered a great loss due to untimely death of Shambhu. Hence, the claim petition was filed. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents and they filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of his vehicle by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether Shambhu died on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident in question, if so, what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? If so to what effect? OPR-3. 4. Relief. Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, allowed a sum of FAO No.4148 of 2007 3 Rs.4,57,000/- as compensation to the claimants. All the respondents were held liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally. Claimants No.1 to 5, 7 and 8 have filed the present appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side. Keeping in view the number of claimants, the dependency calculated by the Tribunal was on the lower side. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal had rightly applied a cut of one third in the assessed salary of the deceased. Multiplier of '18', which was on the higher side, had already been applied by the Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation. While dealing with Issue No.2, learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. Thereafter, a cut of one third of this amount towards personal expenses of the deceased has been applied. Thus, the annual dependency of the claimants has been worked out as Rs.2,000 x 12 = 24,000/-. After applying the multiplier of '18' the total dependency has been worked out as Rs.4,32,000/-. The claimants were further allowed Rs.10,000/- towards the last rites of Shambhu (since deceased) and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium vide the impugned award. Thus, the claimants were allowed Rs.4,57,000/- as total compensation. The amount of compensation, as determined by the FAO No.4148 of 2007 4 learned Tribunal, seems to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The salary of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month. The cut of one third applied by the learned Tribunal, on account of personal expenses of the deceased-Shambhu out of his salary cannot be said to be unjust. Multiplier of '18' has already been applied by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the impugned award calls for no interference. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. (SABINA) JUDGE December 09, 2008 anita