FAO No.1592 of 2007 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1592 of 2007 (O&M) The Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation Jaipur ... Appellant VERSUS Sham Lal and others ... Respondents FAO No.1593 of 2007 (O&M) The Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation Jaipur ... Appellant VERSUS Sarwan Singh and others ... Respondents FAO No.1594 of 2007 (O&M) The Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation Jaipur ... Appellant VERSUS Parmeshwari Devi and others ... Respondents FAO No.1595 of 2007 (O&M) The Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation Jaipur ... Appellant VERSUS Malkhan Singh and others FAO No.1592 of 2007 (O&M) [ 2 ] ... Respondents FAO No.1596 of 2007 (O&M) The Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation Jaipur ... Appellant VERSUS Mali and others ... Respondents Decided on : August 20, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Munishwar Puri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This judgment shall dispose of five appeals i.e. FAO Nos.1592, 1593, 1594, 1595, and 1596 of 2007, as the challenge in these appeals is to the award dated 29.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muktsar, whereby, the claimants – respondents (herein referred as `the claimants) were awarded compensation. The appellant – Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation (herein referred as `the Corporation') while assailing the award, has raised the following points:- (i)The Tribunal did not take into consideration the age of the parents of the deceased in case of the death of unmarried son, and FAO No.1592 of 2007 (O&M) [ 3 ] (ii)Secondly, the owner and driver of the Tanker bearing Reg. No.RJ-02G-5009 were not impleaded as parties, therefore, the claim petitions were bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Heard. As regards the first contention raised by the counsel for the Corporation, both the counsel are in agreement on the point that all the four deceased in the present were bachelors and the Tribunal did not take note of the age of their parents and, thus, did not make any such observations in the impugned award. The Tribunal also did not make observations as to what was the suitable multiplier to be applied for assessing the compensation. Consequently, the impugned award cannot be said to be a speaking one. The Apex Court in case Ramesh Singh and another vs. Satbir Singh and another, Vol.CL-(2008-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 246 observed as under:- “If a young man is killed in the accident leaving behind the aged parents who may not survive long enough to match with a high multiplier provided by the 2nd Schedule, then the Court has to offset such high multiplier and balance the same with the short life expectancy of the claimants. That precisely has happened in this case. Age of the parents was held as relevant factor in case of minors death in recent decision in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Syed Ibrahim and others, JT 2007(11) SC 113. In our considered opinion, the Courts below rightly FAO No.1592 of 2007 (O&M) [ 4 ] struck the said balance.” Similar observations were made in cases New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt.Shanti Pathak and others, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 593 and U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Trilok Chandra and others, Vol.CXIII(1996-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 537. In the case in hand, the Tribunal has also not made any observations regarding the income, much less notional income of the deceased keeping in view the Minimum Wages Act. As such, the impugned award is rendered illegal and, thus, liable to be set aside. Since no arguments were advanced by the parties on the issue regarding non- joinder of necessary parties, therefore, the Tribunal decided issue No.2 against the appellant. However, it is expected that the Tribunal would decide the issue, if the appellant would press for the decision of the same. Resultantly, the appeals are accepted, the impugned award is set aside and the cases are remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, in accordance with law, after inviting evidence of the parties. August 20, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE