F.A.O. No. 5792 OF 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 5792 OF 2010 Date of Decision: October 20th ,2011 Maya Devi and others .... Appellants Versus Gurmeet Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Raj Karan, Advocate, for Mr. Dinesh Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Vandana Malhotra , Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This appeal brought by Maya Devi and others, the claimants, is directed against the award dated 14.5.2010 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which their claim petition has been allowed awarding compensation in a sum of ` 2,16,000/- on the death of Ram Chander. The appeal has been brought for enhancement of the said compensation. The case set up by the claimants-appellants is as under : On 7.3.2009, Ram Chander was coming from the side F.A.O. No. 5792 OF 2010 2 .. of Khanna to Mandi Gobindgarh on bicycle. When he was near G.P. School, GT Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, a truck bearing registration No. PB-10-BF-5084 driven by Gurmeet Singh, respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, came from his back side and had hit the bicycle of the deceased, which brought him down. He suffered injuries on account of the same and he succumbed to them at Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. He was aged 53 years at the time of accident and was dealing in iron scrap at Mandi Gobindgarh and was earning ` 6,000/- per month. A sum of ` 10,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation by the claimants, who are the widow and sons of the deceased. Respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner respectively of the offending truck have filed joint written statement denying the accident to have occurred due to negligence of respondent No.1 in driving the truck. It is claimed that the accident had occurred on account of negligence of the deceased who suddenly came to the GT Road and on account of his sudden appearance thereon, the accident took place. The Insurance company, respondent No.3, has taken a number of preliminary objections in its written statement questioning the maintainability of the claim petition and the vehicle being driven by a person not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The accident is claimed to have occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The F.A.O. No. 5792 OF 2010 3 .. truck in question is said to have not been granted fitness certificate or route permit. The other averments of the claimants regarding the age, occupation and income of the deceased were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1).Whether Ram Chander died in motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 7.3.2009 at about 5.00 PM in the area near G.P.School, G.T.Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PB-10- BF-5084 by respondent No.1 ? OPP 2).Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of Ram Chander, deceased? OPP 3).Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident?OPR-3 4).To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled for and from which of the respondents? OPP 5).Relief. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 2,16,000/- to the claimants which was ordered to be shared by them as per the terms of para No. F.A.O. No. 5792 OF 2010 4 .. 26 of the award. I have heard Mr. Raj Karan, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Vandana Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. I have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellants has questioned the award for selection of wrong multiplier as well as non grant of compensation for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. He has also submitted that the monthly income of the deceased has been taken at ` 3,000/-, which is too low. He has contended that the deceased was a scrap dealer and the income claimed for him at ` 6,000/- per month should have been taken as his income. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that the multiplier of 9 selected by learned Tribunal for assessing compensation in this case is the correct multiplier. According to her, some amount may be awarded to the claimants for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. According to her, the income of the deceased has also been rightly assessed. The deceased had been a scrap dealer. What kind of scrap dealer he was, has not been proved on the record. He was moving on a bicycle at the time of accident which shows that he was collecting scrap from the locality and selling the same to scrap dealer. No evidence has been bought on record F.A.O. No. 5792 OF 2010 5 .. to prove that he owned some place for collecting scrap and was dealing in the same. In these circumstance, without there being any better evidence, income of the deceased at ` 3,000/- per month has been rightly taken by the Tribunal. The age of the deceased is proved in this case to be 55 years at the time of his death. Had he been of the age of 56 years, suitable multiplier as per decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 would have been of 9. Here, the age of the deceased is proved as 55 years and for the age group of 51 to 55 years, multiplier laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) is 11. In these circumstance, the annual dependency of the claimants, assessed by learned Tribunal at ` 24,000/-, was required to be multiplied by 11, which comes to ` 2,64,000/-. As per the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra), in a case brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a sum of ` 10,000/- is required to be awarded for loss of consortium, ` 5,000/- for loss of estate and another ` 5,000/- for funeral expenses. Allowing these amounts to the claimants, they are found entitled to ` 2,84,000/- as compensation. The appeal is, consequently, allowed and the F.A.O. No. 5792 OF 2010 6 .. compensation amount awarded by learned Tribunal in a sum of ` 2,16,000/- is enhanced to ` 2,84,000/-, which shall be payable to the claimants with interest @ 7% per annum. Out of the amount of compensation, a sum of ` 1,04,000/- shall fall to the share of Maya Devi, widow of the deceased, appellant No.1, and the remaining amount shall be shared by the remaining appellants in equal. There shall be no order as to costs. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 20th, 2011 som