FAO No.6673 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6673 of 2010 (in MACT No.274 of 2008) Date of Decision : 30.11.2011 Dhanno Devi and others .......Appellants Versus Charanjit and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ajay Gulati, DAG, Haryana. Mr. M.B. Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The instant appeal has been filed by the claimant- appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, vide its impugned Award dated 02.04.2010. The brief facts of the case in hand are that on 29.4.2008, at about 9.00 p.m., Suresh Kumar, the injured, and Sunil Kumar, since deceased, were going to Village Mundia Khera on a motorcycle from Rewari. When they reached near Sheoraj Majra turn on Rewari-Delhi 1 FAO No.6673 of 2010 Road, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing No.HR47-A-2413, (hereinafter as the offending vehicle), being driven by the driver, Charanjit, respondent No.1, rashly, negligently and at a very high speed, came from the front side and hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, both the occupants of the motorcycle sustained multiple and grievous injuries. They were removed to Birendra Hospital, Rewari, but being in serious condition, Sunil Kumar was referred to Arvind Yadav Hospital & Research Centre, Rewari, where he succumbed to the injuries on 7.5.2008. FIR No.42 dated 30.4.2008 was registered under Sections 279/337/304A IPC at Police Station Sadar Rewari against respondent No.1. In this background, two separate claim petitions were filed, viz. MACT case No.274 of 2008, by the claimants seeking compensation on account of the death of Sunil Kumar; and MACT case No.275 of 2008 by the injured-claimant, Suresh Kumar. The present appeal assails the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal qua MACT case No.274 of 2008. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The deceased, Sunil Kumar, was 21 years of age at the time of death in the accident. He was a bachelor. He is survived by five dependents i.e. the mother, father who is of unsound mind, one minor sister and two minor brothers. While awarding compensation, the learned Tribunal applied deduction to the extent of ½ on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. This Court feels that 2 FAO No.6673 of 2010 keeping in view the composition of the family, the deduction should have been made to the extent of 1/3rd. In para 31 of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, Hon’ble the Apex Court has held as under:- “15. ………. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” In this view of the matter, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the deduction of ½ has been rightly applied cannot be accepted taking into consideration the mental health of the father and the number of dependents. Therefore, the deduction of ½ is decreased to 1/3rd. The learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15 because as per the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the average age of the parents should be considered in the case of a bachelor. In the present case, the parents are aged 40 and 43 years, respectively. The average age of the parents falls in the age group of 41 to 45 years, therefore, the correct multiplier to be applied is 14. It is ordered accordingly. The learned 3 FAO No.6673 of 2010 Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as `3,600/- per month. As a result of the discussion made above, the claimant- appellants are held entitled to the compensation of `4,03,200/- (`3,600/- X 2/3 X 12 X 14) as against the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal i.e. `3,24,000/-, under the head of dependency. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems just and reasonable. Therefore, the claimant-appellants shall be entitled to the amount of `79,200/- as enhanced compensation, 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, they shall also be entitled to the interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization. The enhanced amount will be disbursed by the learned Tribunal in the manner indicated in the Award. The present appeal is partly allowed and the Award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 30.11.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 4