F.A.O. No. 2610 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 2610 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 30th,2011 Mahima Sharma and others .... Appellants Versus Satbir Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. M.B.Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.4-Insurance Company. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. For the reasons mentioned in the application brought under section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 106 days in bringing this appeal, is condoned. This is an appeal of the claimants, the dependents of Mehar Chand (deceased), seeking enhancement of compensation, awarded in a sum of ` 4,83,000/- by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide award dated 8.8.2009. The facts of the case are as under : F.A.O. No. 2610 of 2010 2 .. On 12.11.2008, Sohan Lal alias Chand was plying his three wheeler bearing registration No. HR-49F-0383. He was carrying passengers in the same from Pinjore to Kalka. He was driving his three wheeler at a very moderate speed on his correct left side of the road. When he was near B.D.O. Office on the National Highway, Kalka, at about 9.30 PM, a bus of Haryana Roadways bearing registration No. HR-68-1174 came from the side of Kalka. It was driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. It came on the wrong side of the road and had hit the three wheeler, on account of which Sohan Lal died. Mehar Chand also suffered injuries and he also died as a consequence of the injuries suffered in the accident. Mehar Chand is claimed to be a young man of the age of 28 years. It is claimed that he was having a monthly income of ` 16,000/- by doing agricultural work and running dairy farm, in which he was having 7-8 buffaloes and was selling milk. The respondents resisted the claim petitions. Respondent No.1 has denied the accident to have occurred on account of his rash and negligent driving of the bus. According to him, he was driving his bus by taking all precautions and while over-taking a truck, the driver of the three wheeler lost control over it and had rammed his three wheeler into the standing bus. He was also claimed to have over-loaded the F.A.O. No. 2610 of 2010 3 .. three wheeler. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have adopted the stand of respondent No.1 and have added that the bus had been insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. According to them, the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of insurance company of the three wheeler, because the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the driver of the three wheeler. Respondent No.4 - Insurance company has claimed that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving licence and has claimed that all defences available under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) are available to it. The very accident is denied to have taken place. Respondent No. 4 has denied its liability to pay compensation. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1.Whether the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-68-1174 by respondent No.1? OPP 2.If issue No.1 is proved, whether Sohan Lal and Mehar Chand died in accident in question and injuries sustained by other claimants. If so to what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled to and from whom? OPP 3.Whether respondent No.1 is not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence at the time of accident, if so to what effect?OPR F.A.O. No. 2610 of 2010 4 .. 4.Relief. Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 4,83,000/- to the claimants vide the impugned award. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimants have brought this appeal. I have heard Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma,learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Kunal Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Shri M.B.Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the multiplier suitable for assessment of compensation in this case is 17 and instead of adopting the said multiplier, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 15 to assess the compensation. According to him, the income of the deceased has been assessed at a very lower side. According to him, the deceased was an agriculturist and was running a dairy and was having a very good income. He has also submitted that the amount awarded in a sum of ` 5,000/- towards loss of consortium with no amount awarded for loss of estate and funeral expenses is also liable to be enhanced. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 and No. 4 have admitted that at the age of 28, the multiplier laid down F.A.O. No. 2610 of 2010 5 .. for assessing compensation by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, is 17. They have no objection if the multiplier of 17 is adopted. They have, however, submitted that there is no proof of the income of the deceased and therefore, taking his income at ` 4,000/- by the Tribunal, is in no way erroneous. The deceased is claimed to be an agriculturist. The extent of his holding is not proved on record by bringing some revenue documents. It is also not proved on record as to what number of milch cattle he was having. So, in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, the income of the deceased could be taken at ` 4,000/- and not above that. However, the multiplier of 15 applied in this case is wrong. The annual dependency of the claimant-appellants has been found by learned Tribunal at ` 31,200/-. However, it is also incorrect. Taking income of the deceased at ` 4000/- per month and applying a cut of 1/3rd, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to ` 32,000/-. Multiplying it with 17, the amount of compensation comes to ` 5,44,000/-. A sum of ` 20,000/- is added to it for loss of consortium, loss of estate and towards funeral expenses as is allowed in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). I, therefore, find that the claimants are entitled to ` 5,64,000/- as compensation in this case. F.A.O. No. 2610 of 2010 6 .. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the appeal and enhance the compensation from ` 4,83,000/- to ` 5,64,000/-.The other terms of the award shall remain the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 30th , 2011 som