FAO No. 3870 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 3870 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.7.2010 Mariamma Lukose and others ... Appellants vs Kala Singh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Insurance company. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), only on the ground that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased is not correct. The brief facts of the case are that on 3.2.2007, D. Lukose @ Raju, aged 45 years, was coming towards Bathinda City on his Bajaj Chetak Scooter PB- 03A/9307. His colleague Vinod Kumar was following him on his motor cycle. When they reached near liberty chowk, Bathinda-Mansa Road, a truck-tralla bearing No. RJ-31G-3835, driven by respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently, struck his truck against the scooter of D. Lukose. As a result of this accident, D. Lukose received injuries and died at the spot. A criminal case was registered against respondent no. 1. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The petition filed by the claimants was allowed by the learned Tribunal and taking dependency on the deceased at Rs. 26,666/- per annum and applying multiplier of 13 awarded compensation of Rs. 3,46,658/-. The claimants were also granted Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/- as loss to estate. However, dissatisfied with the award, the claimants filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants raised only one argument that considering the age of the deceased in the present case as 45 years, learned Tribunal has not applied correct multiplier which should have been 15 and not 13 as adopted. In support of his contention, he relied upon schedule attached to the FAO No. 3870 of 2009 -2- Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. Learned counsel for the Insurance company could not dispute the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. The income assessed by the learned Tribunal is not disputed by either of the parties. It is only the application of multiplier which is in dispute in the present appeal. In view of the law laid in the aforesaid judgment, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that as against 13 applied as multiplier by the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased at the time of death, the multiplier of 14 is applied, on the dependency of the deceased as has been assessed by the Tribunal is not in dispute, and the amount of compensation is assessed at Rs. 3,73,324/- as against Rs. 3,46,658/-. The total amount of compensation including funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss to estate comes out to Rs. 3,82,824/- (3,73,324+2000+5000+2500), which is rounded off to Rs. 3,83,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall be shared and dealt with in the same manner as directed by the Tribunal. The claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 14.7.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge