FAO No.4669 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4669 of 2010 (in MACT case No.116 of 2008) Date of Decision : 03.11.2011 Smt. Lalita Devi and another .......Appellant Versus Hukam Chand and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Diwan S. Adalkha, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Lovejinder Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The appeal in hand has been preferred by the appellant- claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded vide impugned Award dated 14.12.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.5.2007, Anil Kumar, since deceased, was going to the tubewell of Ved Parkash Dhiman of village Laharpur, on his bicycle. He was being followed by Upender Yadav and Rajiv Kumar on their separate bicycles. When they 1 FAO No.4669 of 2010 reached near the tubewell of one Jagdish Ravan, near Village Laharpur on Rasoolpur-Laharpur road, a tractor-trolley bearing regd. No.HR-02S-754, being driven by Hukam Chand, the driver, in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came from behind and hit against the bicycle of Anil Kumar. Resultantly, Anil Kumar fell down and was crushed under the tyres of the tractor-trolley. He sustained multiple and grievous injuries and died at the spot. The claimant-appellants, being parents of the deceased, Anil Kumar, preferred claim petition, claiming compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of `2,38,400/-. Enhancement thereof has been sought by way of the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The deceased, Anil Kumar, was 17 years of age at the time of his death in the accident as per the post mortem report. The learned Tribunal has assessed the dependency into two segments. In the first segment, 2/3rd deduction has been made for the first five years and from then onwards, his contribution to the family has been assessed as `700/- per month. In Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that where the deceased is a bachelor, the deduction on account of his/her personal expenses should be assessed as ½ of his total income. In subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been further observed that in such cases, the average age of the parents is to be taken into consideration for applying the multiplier. 2 FAO No.4669 of 2010 In view of the above, the deduction on account of monthly expenses of the deceased towards himself is assessed as ½. Accordingly, the dependency of the claimants on the deceased comes to `1650/- per month. The mother and father of the deceased were aged 45 and 48 years, respectively, at the time of his death. Therefore, the multiplier of 13 is applied in the present case. Accordingly, the compensation payable on account of dependency comes to `2,57,400/- (`1650 X 12 X 13). The learned Tribunal has granted an amount of ` 25,000/- against ‘funeral and last rites expenses’ and another amount of `25,000/- on account of loss suffered by the parents. In Sarla Verma’s case (supra), Hon’ble the Apex Court has fixed the upper limit of compensation under all the conventional heads to the tune of | `20,000/-. Therefore, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal under the aforesaid heads is restricted to a consolidated amount of `20,000/-. Now, the appellants will be entitled to the compensation as under:- 1. Dependency : `2,57,400/- 2. All conventional heads : `20,000/- Total : `2,77,400/- In view of the above discussion, the claimants are held entitled to the enhanced compensation of `39,000/-, which shall be payable to them within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the claimants shall be 3 FAO No.4669 of 2010 entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the present appeal till its realization. The present appeal is partly allowed and the Award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 04.11.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 4