FAO No.4874 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4874 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: September 25, 2009. Pesu Road Transport Corporation & Anr. ...Appellant(s) v. Kiran Bala & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. ORDER Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is owners' appeal challenging the impugned award only on the ground that compensation amount awarded to the respondents is excessive. On 13.7.2003, one Ved Parkash (husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2) suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.5. The aforesaid Shri Ved Parkash succumbed to his injuries on 22.7.2003. Respondents No.1 & 2 claimed compensation claiming that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and was 48 years old at the time of his death. The claim petition was contested by the appellants who are the FAO No.4874 of 2007 -: 2 :- owners of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, held that deceased Ved Parkash died due to injuries suffered by him in the accident caused by Gurdeep Singh while driving the offending vehicle owned by the appellants, on 13.7.2003. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- and assessed the monthly dependency of the claimants at Rs.2700/- and considering the age of the deceased applied the multiplier of 11. The Tribunal resultantly held that the claimants were entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,56,400/- (Rs.2700/- x 12 x 11), besides Rs.20,658/- spent on medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of consortium. Challenging the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in law while holding the age of the deceased at 48 years, as in the death certificate of Shri Ved Parkash, his age has been mentioned as 55 years and, thus, multiplier of 11 could not have been applied in the present case and, therefore, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced suitably. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. In their pleadings, the respondent-claimants had taken a definite stand that the deceased was 48 years old at the time of his death, however, the aforesaid plea has not been denied by the appellants specifically in their written statement. Smt. Kiran Bala – respondent No.1 stepped into witness box and reiterated the facts as stated in her pleadings. FAO No.4874 of 2007 -: 3 :- Certificate of the employer was also placed on the record of the case. Simply because at the time of making the entry in the death register of cremation ground the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 55 years, it cannot be concluded that the deceased was of 55 years of age at the time of his death, as it is common knowledge that such entries are some times made by the persons who have no 'special means of knowledge' about the age of the deceased. In this case, the appellants have not placed on record any such evidence in support of their argument, as aforesaid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 has held that multiplier should be applied with reference to the age of the deceased and for the age group of 51 to 55 years, a multiplier of 11 should be applied. Thus, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case also, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants regarding the age of the deceased does not sustain. Thus, I find no infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal. Dismissed. September 25, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge