F.A.O. No. 2462 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 2462 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: Sept 23rd, 2011. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited .... Appellant Versus Parsan Kaur and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Shri Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal brought by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Corporation Limited, the appellant, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Sirsa (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 9.12.2010. The claim, in brief, brought under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) by Parsan Kaur, the mother and the only dependent of Gopal Singh, is as under : On 29.7.2009, Gopal Singh and Lakhvinder Singh were going from Ellenabad to Budhiamari on a motor cycle. The motor cycle was driven by Lakhwinder Singh at a moderate speed and on his left side of the road. Gopal Singh was travelling on its pillion. F.A.O. No. 2462 of 2011 2 .. At about 8.00 PM, they were near Nirankari Bhawan, Ellenabad, when a pick-up bearing registration No.RJ-13-1G-1234 came from their opposite side. It was driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The jeep had struck against the motor cycle. The driver of the jeep left the spot immediately after the accident. Gurpreet Singh, Gurnam Singh and Surjeet Singh brought Gopal Singh and the other injured to General Hospital, Sirsa, where Gopal Singh was declared as brought dead. Case vide FIR No. 85 dated 30.7.2009 for offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304- A IPC was registered against respondent No.1. Gopal Singh is claimed to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agricultural work. The respondents resisted the claim petition. Respondents No.1 and 2 have denied the accident itself to have occurred, as alleged by the claimant. The Insurance company had claimed that the petitioners have filed the petition in connivance with respondents No.1 and 2. It is also denied that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the pick-up. It is claimed that he was not holding a valid driving license. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether the accident in question had taken place on 29.7.2009 in the area of near Nirankari Bhawan, Ellenabad, at about 8.00 PM due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving Mahindra Pick Up bearing No.RJ-13IG/1234 due to F.A.O. No. 2462 of 2011 3 .. which Gopal Singh son of late Amar Singh lost his life and petitioner Lakhwinder Singh sustained injuries as well as permanent disability on his person as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petitions are not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the petitioners have got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petitions? OPR 5. Whether the petitions are bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties? OPR 6. Whether the respondent No.1 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and if so to what effect? ORP 7. Whether the insured violated any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question, if so, its effect? OPR 8. Relief. Taking the evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has returned the findings in favour of the claimant and finally allowed the claim petition of Parsan Kaur in a sum of Rs.4,13,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition F.A.O. No. 2462 of 2011 4 .. till the date of realization of the amount. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the insured has brought this appeal. I have heard Shri Subhash Goel, learned counsel for the appellant. The respondents are not represented before me, despite service. Learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the award only on two grounds. The first is the aspect of dependency of the claimant and the second is the aspect of multiplier adopted in this case. According to him, mother of the deceased is the only claimant in this case. He has submitted that the deceased was unmarried and therefore, his mother alone is the claimant. He has submitted that in this case, the dependency of the claimant could not have been assessed at more than 50% of the income of the deceased. He has also submitted that the multiplier should also have been applied keeping in view the age of the claimant. He has submitted that Parsan Kaur had claimed herself to be 50 years of age on the date of filing the petition and, therefore, the multiplier of 17, as allowed by learned Tribunal, is not justified. He has submitted that the multiplier suitable in this case is of 13 as per the ratio of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77. I find merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. The cut to be applied to the income of the deceased to find out the dependency of the claimant would depend on the number of the dependents of the deceased. In the case in hand, F.A.O. No. 2462 of 2011 5 .. there is only one dependent of the deceased and, therefore, 50% of the income of the deceased could be taken as the dependency of the claimant. Similarly, in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) the multiplier suggested is of 13 in case of the age group of 46 to 50 years. Since the income of the deceased is taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 3000/- per month and no appeal has been brought by the claimant, the annual dependency of the claimant would come after applying a cut of one half to the same and multiplying the remainder with 12, the annual dependency would be assessed at Rs.18,000/-. Multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.18,000/- with 13, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,34,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- could be added to it on account of loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the amount, to which the claimant would have been entitled to in this case is Rs.2,44,000/- instead of Rs.4,13,000/-. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.4,13,000/- to Rs.2,44,000/-. This amount would carry interest as allowed by the Tribunal vide impugned award. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 23.09.2011. som