In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.3070 of 1999 ..... Date of decision:7.2.2008 Gurdial Singh .....Appellant v. Gura Singh and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the appellant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed by Gurdial Singh, owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 1.6.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (`Tribunal' – for short) whereby compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization has been awarded. On account of motor vehicle accident between the offending vehicle i.e. Tempo No.PUU-9537 owned by the appellant and the scooter on which Kewal Singh (deceased) along with his father Gura Singh (claimant) were riding, a petition for the grant of compensation had been filed. The accident occurred on the link road while the claimant and the deceased were going on their scooter to Village Dakhan Wadh from Village Dala on 5.9.1995 at about 8.00 p.m. When the scooter reached at a distance of one km. from Village Dhakan Wadh, the offending vehicle i.e. Tempo bearing registration No.PUU-9537 came from the opposite side and struck against the scooter, which was being driven by Kewal Singh (deceased). Kewal F.A.O. No.3070 of 1999 [2] Singh (deceased) remained hospitalized from 5.9.1995 to 7.9.1995. On the latter date i.e. on 7.9.1995, he died. The claimants being the father and mother of the deceased filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' – for short) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs. The claim petition having been allowed vide impugned award, the owner of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal assailing the same. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in fact the tempo that was involved in the accident was not owned by the appellant-Gurdial Singh as he had through his power of attorney Teja Singh (respondent No.3) sold it to Sewak Singh (respondent No.5) on 3.1.1994 i.e. before the accident. Therefore, the appellant, it is submitted, could not be burdened with the liability of the compensation that is payable. In any case, it is contended that the multiplier of 20 has wrongly been applied and at the most multiplier of 16 could have been applied for determining and awarding the amount of compensation. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel, however, find no merit in the same. It is not in dispute that on the date of accident Gurdial Singh-appellant was recorded as the owner of the vehicle. Section 2(30) of the Act defines “owner” to mean a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. The motor vehicle in question was admittedly registered in the name of Gurdial Singh- appellant on the date of accident. Therefore, the contention that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle as he has sold the same to Sewak Singh (respondent No.5) through his attorney Teja Singh (respondent No.3) on 3.1.1994 is clearly misconceived. F.A.O. No.3070 of 1999 [3] The multiplier that has been applied is also just and proper. It is not in dispute that the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of his death and was working in the Punjab Armed Police. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- at the time of his death and he used to contribute Rs.2,400/- per month for the claimants. The deceased was the only son of his parents. After his death the claimants have suffered. The learned Tribunal worked out the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- and applied a multiplier of 20. Learned counsel has referred the decision in H.S. Ahammed Hussain and another v. Irfan Ahammed and another, 2002 ACJ 1559 (SC) to contend that at the most multiplier of 16 was liable to be applied. He also refers to the case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and others, (2006-2) PLR 329 (SC) to contend that a multiplier of 12 was applied in the case of an unmarried deceased aged 24 years. It may be noticed that each case is based on its own facts and circumstances. In H.S. Ahammed Hussain's case (supra) the two victims R and V who died in a motor vehicle accident were aged 21 and 22 years respectively. They were working as Coolies. The age of the parents of the two persons R and V who died in the accident were 45 and 40 years and 53 and 45 years respectively. Two claim petitions were filed by the parents of the victims seeking compensation under the Act. The income of each victim was assessed to be Rs.3000/- per month and compensation of Rs.3,49,000/- and Rs.3,13,000/- was awarded respectively to the parents of the victims with interest @ 6% per annum. In appeal the High Court assessed their income to be Rs.18,000/- per annum which was somewhat more than Rs.1500/- per month that was prescribed as F.A.O. No.3070 of 1999 [4] notional income as a non earning person under the Second Schedule to the Act. The contribution of each deceased victim towards his family was assessed at Rs.12,000/-. In view of the ages of the respective mothers of R and V a multiplier of 14 and 13 in their respective cases was applied. The amount of compensation was reduced to Rs.1,83,000/- from Rs.3,49,000/- in the case of R and to Rs.1,71,000/- from Rs.3,13,000/- in the case of V. The Supreme Court held that in the case of compensation to the parents of V, the multiplier of 15 should have been adopted instead of 13 and the compensation should not have been reduced from Rs.3,13,000/- to Rs.1,71,000/- but the same should have been reduced to Rs.1,95,000/-. In the case of compensation to parents of R, the correct multiplier it was observed should have been 16 and not 14 and the High Court was not justified in reducing the compensation from Rs.3,49,000/- to Rs.1,83,000/- which should have been reduced to Rs.2,07,000/-. Interest @ 9% was awarded. The said case is, therefore, confined to its own facts where the deceased victims were working as coolies and there were less chances of future prospects. In the present case, the deceased was in the Punjab Armed Police and there were future prospects in service for him. It may be noticed that the Supreme Court, therefore, in the case of R who was aged 21 years and his parents were aged 45 and 40 years respectively held that multiplier of 16 would be appropriate. In Bijoy Kumar Dugar's case (supra), the deceased was aged 24 years. He was held to be earning about Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.28,800/- per year was assessed as loss to the claimants, who were parents and aged 45 and 50 years and multiplier of 12 was applied. In the present case, the deceased was posted at the Punjab F.A.O. No.3070 of 1999 [5] Armed Police at Jalandhar. Gurmit Singh, Assistant Accountant, 18 Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar (AW-3) brought the service record of the deceased. According to his deposition, the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.3,050/- per month. It was observed that the deceased was keeping 1/3rd salary with him and giving Rs.2,000/- to his parents. In this manner, the annual dependency has been worked out at Rs.24,000/-. It was also noticed that the deceased would have given a sum of Rs.400/- per month for a period of 16 years after marriage had he been alive. Therefore, the deceased being employed in Government service and working in the Punjab Armed Police where there are future prospects of increase in pay either by length of service, promotion or pay re-fixation, the multiplier of 20 in the facts and circumstances has rightly been applied. The ratio of the judgments referred to by the learned counsel in H.S. Ahammed Hussain's case (supra) and Bijoy Kumar Dugar's case (supra), therefore, would be inapplicable to the present case. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. February 7, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*