FAO No. 7336 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 7336 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.12.2012 Rubi Devi & anr. ....Appellants V/s Jagjit Singh & ors. ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent no. 3. RAJAN GUPTA J. Present appeal has been preferred against the award passed by the tribunal at Patiala challenging the quantum of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants have assailed the award on the limited ground that multiplier applied is on the lower side keeping in view the age of deceased. Plea has been resisted by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3. According to him, multiplier has been correctly applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Heard. An accident took place on 15.04.2008 when deceased Vijay Kumar was going on motorcycle towards Laxmi Bhai Dental College, Sirhind Road, Patiala. At about 2.00 p.m. when he turned his motorcycle in the meantime the offending vehicle (a Bolero Jeep) being driven in a rash and negligent manner struck against FAO No. 7336 of 2011 2 the motorcycle. As a result thereof, his motorcycle fell down on the road. He suffered multiple injuries. He was shifted to Amar hospital, Patiala. He, however, succumbed to his injuries. On a claim being lodged, tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased died as a result of rash and negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle. Since appellant no. 2 failed to establish her dependency on the deceased, tribunal held that only wife of the deceased was entitled to compensation. Tribunal after taking into account medical bills exhibited by the claimants, awarded a sum of `1,99,570/- towards medical expenses. Claimants deposed before the tribunal and claimed that Vijay Kumar was earning `10,000/- p.m. by working as salesman. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence establishing the income, tribunal roughly assessed the same as `4,000/- p.m. A cut of 1/3rd was applied as expenses for personal use. Annual dependency was, thus, assessed as `32000/-. As deceased was stated to be about 33 years, tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 and arrived at a figure of `4,80,000/- (`32000x15). Another sum of `20,000/- was granted under usual heads. Total compensation was, thus, worked out as `6,99,570/-. I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity with the award delivered by the tribunal. No documentary evidence establishing age of the deceased has been produced before the tribunal. In my considered view, tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier. No interference is required in appellate jurisdiction of this court. Appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. As the appeal has been heard and decided on merits, application for condonation of delay does not survive. FAO No. 7336 of 2011 3 December 19, 2012 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE