In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 1154 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: August 03, 2009 Lachhman Dass and another .. Appellants Vs. Jangir Singh (deceased) through L.Rs. and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.Kartikeya, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. Pradeep Goyal, Advocate for the respondent No.3. A.N. Jindal, J CM No. 22963-CII of 2008 Civil Misc. application is allowed. Balwinder Singh and Vinod, as mentioned in para Nos.2 and 3 of the application, are ordered to be impleaded as legal representative of respondents No.1 and 2 respectively. FAO No. 1154 of 1989 Assailed in this appeal is the award dated 13.6.1989, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby, compensation to the tune of Rs.86,400/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization has been passed in favour of the claimants, on account of untimely death of Gurcharan Lal aged about 20 years in a motor vehicular accident. Neither the liability nor negligence have been challenged by the respondents. However, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 1.9.1987, the deceased Gurcharan Lal along with Gurmuch Singh was going on his scooter bearing registration No.PUN-4859, and when they reached near the turning, the respondent No.1 (since deceased) while driving his truck bearing registration No. PUG-9959 rashly and negligenlty, struck against F.A.O. No. 1154 of 1989 (O&M) -2- *** his scooter. As a result of which he fell down and succumbed to the injuries. The respondents contested the claim petition. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent No.1 caused death of Gurbachan Singh by rash and negligent driving of truck No.PUG9959 on 1.9.1987?OPP. 2. Whether the claimants are father and mother of the deceased?OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable?OPR-3 4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPR-3 5. Whether respondent No.3 has no liability?OPR-3 6. Whether respondent No.3 alone is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation found due to the petitioner?OPR-2 7. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom?OPP. 8. Relief. Ultimately, the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.86400/- was awarded in favour of the claimants. Arguments heard. The Tribunal, decided issues No.3, 4 and 5 against the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, as such the Insurance Company should certainly have been held liable along with respondents No.1 and 2. Validity of the driving licence has also not been disputed in this case. In that situation also, the respondent No.3- Insurance Company was certainly liable to pay compensation as imposed by the Tribunal. The deceased Gurcharan Lal, 20 years old, was working as Turner on the Leth, in a factory at Mandi Gobindgarh. His salary has been proved to be Rs.750/- per month along with bonus of Rs.300/-. The Tribunal rightly did not count the bonus as part of his income because F.A.O. No. 1154 of 1989 (O&M) -3- *** industrial establishments grants bonus only in case they are in profit. However, they did not consider the prospective increase in his income with the passage of time. As such, it appears that the Tribunal by mistake recorded that the respondents No.1 and 2 were liable jointly and severely and did not record the liability of the Insurance Company-respondent No.3 whereas, it should have recorded that respondents No.1 to 3 are liable jointly and severely. Similarly, the Tribunal wrongly calculated the amount after deducting the sum of Rs.15,000/-, as Rs.84900/-, whereas, it should have mentioned as Rs.71,400/-. Any way, while considering the aforesaid circumstances and after deducting Rs.300/- which he may be spending for himself, his net dependency comes to Rs.450/-, the annual dependency comes to Rs.5400/- per annum, and after applying the multiplier of 18, it comes to Rs.97200/-. It may further be observed that the Tribunal also fell in error while not awarding anything on account of loss of consortium, transportation and funeral expenses, therefore, I award a sum of Rs.25,000/- on these heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,22,200/- as compensation. However, they would be entitled to interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal on the enhanced amount. The award is also rectified to the extent that the respondents No.1 to 3 would be jointly and severely liable. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. August 03, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge