FAO No. 2473 of 2010 (O&M) & FAO No. 6341 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) FAO No. 2473 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.9.2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Gurmeet Singh and others ...Respondents (2) FAO No. 6341 of 2010 (O&M) Paramjit Kaur ...Appellant Versus Dharam Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.MS Longia, Advocate for the appellants/Claimants Mr.Amit Shivrain, Advocate for respondents Driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent -Insurance Company *** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(Oral) CM No.12381-CII of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 4 days in re-filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. FAO No. 2473 of 2010 (O&M) & FAO No. 6341 of 2010 (O&M) 2 FAO No.2473 of 2010 This judgment shall dispose of FAO No. 2473 of 2010, filed by the Insurance Company and FAO No.6341 of 2010, filed by the claimants assailing the Award dated 1.2.2010, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, (for brevity 'the Tribunal) vide which an amount of Rs.12,77,000/- has been awarded to the claimants on account of death of Gursewak Singh. The brief facts giving rise to the case are that on 15.8.2008, when Gursewak Singh and Constable Baljit Singh were travelling in a Pajero Jeep bearing registration No. CH-03Y-3708, near Devidaspura turn, a bus bearing registration No. NL 08-B 0049, being driven by Dharam Chand hit the Pajero Jeep. As a result, Gursewak Singh succumbed to the injuries on the spot and the Constable Baljit Singh received injuries. A claim petition was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 parents of Gursewak Singh deceased. The same was allowed by learned Tribunal vide award dated 1.2.2010, and a sum of `12,77,000/- was granted as compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned Award, Insurance Company has filed FAO No. 2473 of 2010, whereas the claimant- Paramjit Kaur filed FAO No.6341 of 2010. The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company is that the age of the parents of the deceased FAO No. 2473 of 2010 (O&M) & FAO No. 6341 of 2010 (O&M) 3 being 52 and 54 years, the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. He further contended that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the age of the dependents i.e. parents of the deceased, should have been considered. According to their age, which falls within the age group of 51-55 years, the multiplier 11 should have been applied. I find merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, as per the claim petition, the age of the claimants i.e. parents of the deceased has been recorded as 52 and 54 years mother and father respectively. Keeping in view the above facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier is accordingly reduced from 17 to 11. In view of the above modification, the present appeal is partly allowed. FAO No. 6341 of 2010 (O&M) For the reasons mentioned in CM No. 27890-CII of 2010, delay of 5 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. Main case Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant Paramjit Kaur has contended that the Tribunal has rightly decided the claim petition, but wrongly applied the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court FAO No. 2473 of 2010 (O&M) & FAO No. 6341 of 2010 (O&M) 4 in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 . Learned counsel has further contended that the Tribunal erred in not considering the factum of future income. The deceased was a Constable with UT, Chandigarh Police and as per his salary certificate Ex.P8, he was drawing a sum of Rs.12646/- per month. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that regarding conventional heads a meager amount of `2000 has been awarded. As per Smt.Sarla Verma's case (Supra), in view of imponderables and uncertainties, adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years is to be awarded. The fact of deceased being a Constable with UT Police is not in dispute. Accordingly, I find merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation towards future prospects has wrongly been not considered. The interpretation of law or the application of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme court under MACT cases, which is a welfare legislation, the well deserve benefit cannot be withdrawn. It is not in dispute that the age of the deceased was 27 years and he was a Government employee. Accordingly, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased would meet the ends of justice in view of the above cited case. As stated, the deceased was drawing a salary of `12,646/- per month and after 50% increase for future prospects, the FAO No. 2473 of 2010 (O&M) & FAO No. 6341 of 2010 (O&M) 5 salary comes to (12646+ 6300) `18946/- per month. After making 50% deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the income comes to `9480/- per month. Thus, after applying the multiplier of 11, which has been reduced by this Court in FAO No.2473 of 2010 filed by the Insurance Company, the total compensation comes to (9480x12x11) `12,51,360/-. Regarding the contention of meager compensation under the conventional heads, this Court feels that awarding a lump sum amount of ` 20,000/-, would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the total compensation comes to (12,51,360+20,000) ` 12,71,360/-. As per impugned award dated 1.2.2010, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of `12,77,000/- to the claimants. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this court orders that recovery of balance amount i.e. `5640/- (12,77,000- 12,71,360) is not to be made from the claimants. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 12.9.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE