FAO No. 346 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.346 of 1986 and Cross objection No. 51-CII of 1993 Decided on : 04-11-2008 Union of India ....Appellant VERSUS Smt. Promila Chauhan and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. O.P.Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Ms. Geeta Singhwa, Central Govt. Counsel for the appellant. Mr. P.S.Saini, Advocate for the Cross objectors. MAHESH GROVER, J This is an appeal directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 24.10.1985. The appellant herein is the Union of India who has authorised the State of Haryana to represent it in the present appeal. One Major R.S.Chauhan who was going on scooter alongwith one K.D.Chauhan was injured in a road accident which took place on 19.9.84 which ultimately led to his death on 25.9.1984. The accident occurred when the motor cycle being driven by one LAC Mohanta and belonging to Squardan Air Force Station Kalpi, Indian Air Force collided with the scooter of the deceased at a crossing. The Tribunal held the driver of the motor cycle guilty of FAO No. 346 of 1986 2 negligently driving the motor cycle and causing the accident. The finding was recorded in a claim petition preferred by the respondents who are the widow and the children of the deceased. The Tribunal further awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,30,626/- by taking the salary of the deceased as Rs. 3233/- per month and assessing the dependency as Rs. 2473/- per month. Multiplier of 13 ½ was applied by considering the age of the superannuation of the deceased and for the remaining 2 ½ years, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded keeping in view the pension that the deceased would have drawn had he continued in service. The claimants have filed cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation. Assailing the award of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accident occurred at a crossing and therefore, it could be inferred that the deceased himself was also negligent in causing the accident and hence the finding of the negligence against the appellant is erroneous. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on this aspect of the matter and have perused the record. The statement of the driver of the motor cycle LAC Mohanta is revealing to an extent. In his written statement filed to the claim petition, he has stated that he was driving the motor cycle at a speed of 50kms/hour while the deceased was driving the scooter at a speed of 25 kms/hour. He has also stated that the deceased was driving scooter on his left side and that there was a mis-reading of the situation by him as he thought that the deceased would be turning towards Jagadhri side while he chose to go straight. He further testified that he has seen the scooter for the first time when he was in the middle of the crossing FAO No. 346 of 1986 3 and that he was further at a distance of 50 yards at that point of time. If the statement is read then it becomes abundantly clear that the motor cyclist was at a fast speed. A greater care and caution was expected of him since he was entering the crossing. Besides, the deceased had already entered the crossing and had substantially crossed the road before the motor cyclist came on the seen. He was seen from the distance of 50 yards yet no efforts were made by the motor cyclist either to avoid the collision or slow down the motor cycle. There is no hesitation that the motor cyclist was negligent and was responsible for causing the accident and consequent death of the deceased. The findings of the Tribunal on this issue are accordingly affirmed. No other challenge has been raised in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. In so far as the cross objections of the claimants are concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel for the cross objectors that future prospects have not been taken into consideration. The deceased was a Major and had prospects of promotions in future. Some communications were also shown to the Court reflecting that the deceased was due for promotion however they are not on record. In any eventuality, in cases such as these wherein incumbent is in regular employment it is to be inferred that such a person with the passage of time is likely to gain his promotions and also gain the corresponding increase in pay. The future prospects therefore have to be taken into consideration while assessing the compensation. The principle as enunciated in various judgments of the Apex Court is that the salary which is being received by the deceased is to be FAO No. 346 of 1986 4 doubled and then added to the monthly salary and average of the two figures is to be taken as salary of deceased. Calculating in this manner, the salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 4844/- per month which is rounded off to Rs. 4845/- per month (6460+3230 = 9690/2 = 4845). The deceased was survived by his widow and two minor children. Therefore, a cut of 1/3rd would be adequate and dependency in this way comes to Rs. 3230/-. The deceased was aged 41 years and therefore, the multiplier of 15 would be just and reasonable in the given set of circumstances and by keeping in view the Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, which is a guiding factor. The compensation in this manner comes to Rs. 5,81,400/-(3230 x 12 x 15). Nothing has been awarded to the claimants on account of funeral expenses and loss of estate. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded under this head. In this way, total compensation comes to Rs. 6,01,400/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of its realisation. The cross objections are allowed in the aforesaid terms and the award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. The liability to pay the amount shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. November 04 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge