FAO No. 4171 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4171 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.2.2010 ... Veena Rani and another ................Appellants vs. M/s. Sonam Regency In Pvt. Ltd. and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellants Sh. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the Insurance Company-respondent No.3. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) Veena Rani – widow and Anshul – minor son of Mukesh Kumar have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation granted by Sh. A.K. Shori, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, vide award dated 1.6.2006. The claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of Mukesh Kumar in a motor vehicular accident. As per case of the claimants, Mukesh Kumar was pillion rider on scooter No. HR-36-5017 on 15.7.2003 when accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Qualis bearing registration No. HR-38 H (T) FAO No. 4171 of 2006 -2- 0535 by its driver. Respondent No.1 was proceeded against ex parte. After trial, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Qualis bearing registration No. HR-38 H (T) 0535 by its driver and accepted the claim petition granting an amount of Rs.14,50,000/-. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid award, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.13,600/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount, the monthly dependency has been taken as Rs.9,000/-. The yearly dependency has been taken as Rs.1,08,000/-. Counsel for the appellants has only contested regarding the multiplier and regarding expenses incurred on medical treatment of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that multiplier applied at the age of 26 years should be 17. To support this contention, counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon authorities reported as Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 and Saroj Devi and others vs. Sunil Kumar and others 2009 ACJ 2096. However, counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon authority reported as Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. vs. K.I. Bindu and others 2006 (1) PLR 224, to support his contention that multiplier of 13 is correct. So far as, Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd.'s case (Supra) is concerned, in that case, the age of the deceased was 34 years, whereas the age of the deceased in the present case is 26 years. Sarla FAO No. 4171 of 2006 -3- Verma's case (Supra) is later in time then the decision of Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd.'s case (Supra). As per Sarla Verma's case (Supra) the multiplier applicable for the age group of 26 to 30 years is 17. So, the multiplier awarded by the Tribunal stands enhanced to 17. So far as, submission made by counsel for the appellants to the effect that no amount regarding period of hospitalization of deceased was granted, is concerned, counsel for the appellants could not point out how much amount was spent thereon. However, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.16,000/- towards last rites of the deceased and Rs.30,000/- has been awarded to the widow towards loss of consortium. So, no further enhancement regarding expenses, is made out. Consequently, the claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.4,32,000/- ( 1,08,000 X 4 ) more in addition to the amount granted by the Tribunal. Out of this amount, Rs.1,32,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the minor in such a manner that he will get maximum rate of interest. The remaining amount shall be paid to the widow. The claimants are also held entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of appeal till its realisation. The liability to pay the said amount by the respondents shall be the same as held by the Tribunal. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ( K.C. Puri ) 11.2.2010 Judge chugh FAO No. 4171 of 2006 -4-