FAO No. 155 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 155 of 2011 (in MACT No.8 of 2007) Date of decision: 3.11.2011 Smt.Kamla and others ....Appellants Versus Dinesh Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Dharampal Gill, Advocate for the appellants Mr.RC Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4- Insurance Company ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani (for brevity 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.2.2010, on account of death of Raghbir. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased, who died in motor vehicular accident on 9.7.2007, was the sole bread earner in the family. Further contends that the deceased was earning ` 30,000/- per month being agriculturist, as he was owner in possession of 20 acres of land, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed his income as ` 3000/- FAO No. 155 of 2011 2 per month under the Minimum Wages Act. Further, the dependency of 2/3rd has been wrongly assessed, whereas there are five dependents and as per 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) 77 , the same should be increased to the extent of 3/4th. Still further, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13, which is also not in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma's case because as per the postmortem report, the age of the deceased was 36 years at the time of his death. As such, the same deserves to be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants and states that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and therefore, there is no scope of any enhancement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. From the record, it emerges that the income of the deceased was taken as per Minimum Wages Act, but as per the Notification issued by the Haryana Government under the Minimum Wages Act, the minimum income of a casual labourer has been prescribed as ` 3510/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased is to be considered as per the said Notification. Regarding dependency, as per Smt.Sarla Verma's case, it is to be increased from 2/3rd to 3/4th because there are five dependents. The deceased was supposed to spend 1/4th on himself. From the postmortem report, it reveals that the deceased was 36 years of age at the time of his death, and therefore, FAO No. 155 of 2011 3 as per Smt.Sarla Verma's case, the multiplier of 13 applied by the learned Tribunal also deserves to be enhanced to the extent of 15. Ordered accordingly. The amount under the conventional heads awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and adequate and remains undisturbed. In view of the above, the total compensation towards dependency comes to ` 4,73,850/- (3510 x 3/4 x 12 x 15). The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 3,12,000/-. As such the balance enhanced amount i.e. ` 1,61,850/- shall be paid to the appellants/claimants in the manner indicated in the impugned award within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. If the said amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the appellant is also entitled to get 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. 3.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE