F.A.O.No.450 of 1996. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. F.A.O.No.450 of 1996. Date of decision:20-3-2008 R.Mugham and another. ...Appellants. Versus Amarjit Singh and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. P.K. Dutt Advocate for the appellants. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. This appeal and the connected FAO No.451 of 1996 titled Vijay and another Versus Amarjit Singh and another and FAO No.452 of 1996 titled Narain and others Versus Amarjit Singh and another have arisen out of same award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these appeals, they are clubbed together for the purpose of disposal and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts have, however, been extracted from FAO No.450 of 1996. F.A.O.No.450 of 1996. -2- The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that on 29.6.1991 at about 9.15 PM, Wadoo Umbha, Shivgami, Rattana and Ramai were sitting by the side of the road. Maruti Van bearing registration No.PIP-57 driven by respondent No.1, rashly and negligently came from the side of of railway station at a high speed without observing traffic rules. The said Van while coming on the wrong side struck against the above-said women besides one Ramai. They sustained serious injuries on account of said impact. Except Ramai, all the three other ladies died at the spot. Ramai was removed to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. The said accident was witnessed by Lachhman Raj son of Sajju Ram of Indra Colony, Patiala. Three claim petitions were filed by their children for pecuniary loss suffered by them on account of abrupt termination of lives of above-said ladies. The respondents appeared and filed separate written statements, denying the accident. They prayed for their dismissal of claims petitions. On the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed:- 1.Whether Rattna, Shivgami and Wadoo Umbha died in an accident on 29.6.1991 in the area of Indra Colony, Patiala, with Maruti Van bearing registration No.PIP 57? OPP. 2.To what amount, the claimants are entitled to. If so, from whom?OPP. F.A.O.No.450 of 1996. -3- 3.Whether the claim petition is proper and maintainable?OPR. 4.Relief. On issue No.1, the learned Tribunal held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Amarjit Singh, driver. Accordingly, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. On issue No.2, the learned Tribunal assessed the annual income of three deceased ladies at Rs.3,000/- and by applying a multiplier of 10, the amount of compensation worked out was Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Feeling aggrieved with the amount of compensation, the claimants have filed three separate appeals, mentioned above. I have heard arguments addressed by the counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record of the case. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal in respect of Wadoo Umbha, Shivgami and Rattana is extremely on lower side. The dependency assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Even a labourer used to earn Rs.50/- per day at the time of accident. Even F.A.O.No.450 of 1996. -4- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the minimum amount of compensation to be granted is Rs.50,000/-. The learned Tribunal has granted the amount on the lower side. The age of the deceased has also not been taken into account while deciding the amount of compensation. I have carefully considered the said submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the counsel for the appellants carry force and have to be accepted. The dependency of each deceased has been assessed at Rs.250/- per month and yearly dependency has been calculated at Rs.3,000/-. The said dependency is on the lower side. According to the evidence on the file, all the three deceased were selling balloons and small toys. The income of each deceased has been given as Rs.2,000/- per month in the claim petitions. Even if the income of the deceased in terms of dependency regarding help to the family is taken into account, the amount of Rs.250/- per month is on lower side. So, the dependency of the claimants in each case is taken at Rs.600/- per month. Therefore, the annual dependency comes to Rs.7,200/-. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 10 irrespective of the age of the deceased. This approach of the learned Tribunal is not correct and multiplier in each case has to be assessed F.A.O.No.450 of 1996. -5- independently. In FAO No.450 of 1996, the age of Wadoo Umbha deceased was 60 years. So, multiplier in that case, in my view should be Seven. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.50,400/-. In FAO No.451 of 1996, the age of deceased Rattana is mentioned as 55 years. Multiplier, at this age is ordered to be taken as Ten. As a consequence thereof, the claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.72,000/-. In FAO No.52 of 1996, the age of Shivgami, deceased is mentioned as 40 years. So, multiplier applicable to her age is Fourteen. Therefore, the claimants are awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,800/-. In view of above discussion, the above-said three claim petitions stand partly accepted. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to make the payment of the amount of compensation to the claimants in the three appeals as detailed below:- FAO No.450 of 1996. Rs.50,400/- R.Mugham and another. Versus Amarjit Singh and another. FAO No.451 of 1996. Rs.72,000/- Vijay and another. Versus. Amarjit Singh and another. FAO No.452 of 1996 Rs.1,00,800/- Narain and others Versus Amarjit Singh and another. F.A.O.No.450 of 1996. -6- The awarded amount shall be shared by the claimants as ordered by the Tribunal. The claimants in all the three appeals will also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by this Court. Except above noted enhancement in compensation, the remaining part of award stands affirmed. As respondents are ex parte, there is no order as to costs so far as appeal is concerned. A copy of this judgment be placed on the connected two appeals. March 20 ,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge