FAO No. 5067 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 5067 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.2.2010 Smt. Raj Kumari and others ... Appellants vs Rajesh and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Virender Singh Punia, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for the Insurance company. Rajesh Bindal J. CM Nos. 24675-76/CII/2009 The applications are allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. FAO No.5067/2009 This appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of Ajay Goel. Vide award dated 5.12.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), a sum of Rs. 7,94,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization. Briefly the facts as stated in the award of the learned Tribunal are that on 17.7.2006, Ajay Goel and his colleagues Smt. Rajbala, Smt. Hem Lata, Satish Gupta, Dharampal, Kali Ram and Hari Om were going to Rohtak in a Maruti Van bearing registration No. HR-56-4580 which was being driven by Vijay to inquire about the well being of their colleague Jaibir Dhanda. When they reached in the area of Village Sunderpur on Jind- Rohtak Road, then a Tata four wheeler bearing registration No. HR-12A- 6657, being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from Rohtak side and struck against the Maruti Van while coming on wrong side of the road. Due to the injuries suffered by Ajay Goel and Vijay, they died at the spot while injured Smt. Hem Lata and Dharampal died after reaching PGIMS, Rohtak. Hari Om, Smt. Rajbala and Satish Gupta also suffered multiple injuries in the said accident. Criminal case was registered FAO No. 5067 of 2009 -2- against the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 34/35 years, is not correct, which should have been 16 and not 13 as applied by it. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that cut applied by the Tribunal as personal expenses of the deceased is on higher side as appellant no. 1 widow, appellants no. 2 to 5 four minor children, appellant no. 6 father and proforma respondent no. 4 were dependent on him, the cut should have been 1/5th. To support his contention, he relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company submitted that much more than what the claimants deserved, has been awarded by the learned Tribunal after applying the multiplier of 13 which, in fact, deserves to be reduced. It was further submitted that unit system adopted by the learned Tribunal for calculating the annual dependency cannot be termed as legal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) laid down certain guide-lines for the purpose of calculation of compensation in the form of determination of dependency and application of multiplier. The relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, FAO No. 5067 of 2009 -3- and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. xx xx xx 42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P.SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” The salary and dependency of the deceased in the present case is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the application of multiplier and unit system adopted by the learned Tribunal. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that where the number of dependent family members, exceeds six, a cut of 1/5th is required to be applied. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was survived by his widow, four minor children and aged parents. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in determining the dependency of the deceased by applying unit system rather considering the dependents, a cut of 1/5th should have been applied. The salary of the deceased was proved on record at Rs. 5,800/- per month. If a cut of 1/5th is applied thereon, the dependency would come out to Rs. 4,640/- per month. The annual dependency would come out to Rs. 55,680/- and not Rs. 58,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. If multiplier of 16 is applied thereon, the amount of compensation payable to the appellants and respondent No. 4 would come out to Rs. 8,90,880/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 8,91,000/-. FAO No. 5067 of 2009 -4- The award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent mentioned above. The amount awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium shall be in addition to the amount determined above. The additional amount of compensation determined by this Court shall carry same interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount. The amount of enhanced compensation shall be divided and dealt with in the same manner as was directed by the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in the manner indicated above. 8.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge