FAO NO. 2617 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 2617 of 2008(O&M) Date of order: 21.10.2011 Smt. Chand Kaur & Others ..... Appellants Versus Anil Kumar and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Pankaj Midha, Advocate for the applicants-appellants. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the insurance company. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.25303-CII of 2011 This is an application for fixing the actual date of hearing in FAO No.2617 of 2008. Shri Pardeep Goyal, learned counsel for the insurance company is present in the court. He has no objection if the prayer is allowed or even the appeal is heard today. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appeal is taken up today for hearing. CM stands disposed of accordingly. FAO No.2617 of 2008 This is an appeal brought by the claimants, the dependents of Dhoop Singh for enhancement of compensation. Their claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been allowed FAO NO. 2617 of 2008(O&M) 2 vide award dated 11.10.2007 and a sum of Rs.10,04,560/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the appellants. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under:- On 21.09.2005 Dhoop Singh alongwith his colleague Om Parkash was going from Hisar to Narnaund in connection with election of Hisar District Cooperative Krishi and Gramin Bank Ltd. Hisar. They were travelling in a car, which was being driven by Bijender Singh at his left side of the road. When they were ahead of village Majra, a Marshal jeep bearing registration No.HR15-B/5443 came from their opposite side. It was driven by Jagdish, respondent no.2 in a very rash and negligent manner. The Marshal jeep was brought to the wrong side of the road and had hit the car, in which Dhoop Singh was travelling. In the accident Dhoop Singh suffered serious injuries and he died at the spot. The claim petition is opposed by the respondents. While respondents no.1 and 2 have denied the driving of Marshal jeep in a rash and negligent manner and have claimed the accident to have been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the car. Respondent no.3 has denied its liability to indemnify the insured on the ground that respondent no.2 was not holding a valid driving licence and that there has been infraction of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Respondent no.3 has also pleaded collusion between the claimants and the other respondents. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short FAO NO. 2617 of 2008(O&M) 3 learned Tribunal):- “1- Whether the accident in question resulting into the death of Dhoop Singh was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of jeep No.HR16-B/5443 by respondent no.2 Jagdish ?OPP 2- If issue no.1 is proved, what is the amount of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled and from whom ?OPP 3- Whether respondent no.2 had no valid licence to drive the vehicle at the time of this accident. If so, to what effect ?OPR-3 4- Relief.” Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has decided the claim petition vide award dated 11.10.2007 and a sum of Rs.10,04,560/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the impugned award, the claimants have preferred this appeal. I have heard Mr. Pankaj Midha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pardeep Goyal, learned counsel for the insurance company. I have gone through the record carefully. The only exception taken by learned counsel for the appellants to the calculation of compensation made by learned Tribunal is with regard to the multiplier and the amount awarded for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased was found by learned Tribunal FAO NO. 2617 of 2008(O&M) 4 to have died at the age of 54 years and as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier of 11 should have been applied. According to him, learned Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 10 instead of 11. According to him, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for loss of estate and last rites and has awarded no amount for loss of consortium though wife of Dhoop Singh is one of the claimants. Learned counsel for the insurance company has admitted that in Smt. Sarla Verma and others's case (supra), the multiplier held appropriate for assessing compensation in case of death of persons in the age group of 51 to 55 is 11. He has also admitted that in Smt. Sarla Verma and others' case(supra) itself a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses have been allowed. Learned Tribunal has given no reason for adopting the multiplier of 10. So the annual dependency found by learned Tribunal at Rs.99456/- is to be multiplied by 11 for assessing compensation in this case and to the amount so found lost by the claimants in the death of Dhoop Singh, a sum of Rs.20,000/- has to be awarded for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. In these circumstances, the compensation due to the appellants comes to Rs.11,14,016/-. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the compensation payable to the appellants is enhanced to Rs.11,14,016/-, FAO NO. 2617 of 2008(O&M) 5 which shall be payable to the claimants in the manner and with interest as ordered by learned Tribunal. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 21.10.2011 JUDGE dinesh