FAO No.6611 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6611 of 2010 Date of decision:7.12.2011 Satpal and others ....Appellants Versus Sh.Manohar Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Vikram Bali, Advocate for the appellants None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 2.3.2010, on account of death of Rajesh Kumar, in a motor vehicular accident on 22.3.2007. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of his death. The learned Tribunal ignoring the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) FAO No.6611 of 2010 2 77 , applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 18. He further contends that the deceased was a taxi driver. However, without considering this fact, his income was assessed at `3300/- per month. He further contends that an amount of `,5000/- towards loss of consortium and `62,00/- towards funeral expenses has been awarded, which is inadequate. Controverting the aforementioned submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has stated that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper, and therefore, there is no scope of any further enhancement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It is admitted fact that at the time of death of the deceased, he was 25 years of age, which is reflected in the driving licence as well as stated in the claim petition itself. There is no contradictory evidence on record to disapprove the same. Therefore, keeping in view the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma's case, the multiplier of 18 instead of 17 ought to have been applied. Ordered accordingly. Regarding income of the deceased, there being no conclusive proof of salary of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed his income as `3300/- per month, which was prevalent at that time. The deceased was the only bread earner of the family. His untimely death was a great shock to the family. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded under the heads of loss FAO No.6611 of 2010 3 of consortium and funeral expenses appears to be on lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, this Court feels that further grant of `20000/- more towards the aforesaid heads, would meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to `5,06,400/-(3300 (income per month) x 2/3 (dependency) x 12 x 18 (multiplier) + 31,200 ( conventional heads). The balance amount i.e. `46,400/- ( 5,06,400- 4,60,000 (already awarded by the learned Tribunal) shall be paid to the appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned award, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the same shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal, till its realisation. In view of above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above. 7.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE