IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 151 of 1988 Date of Decision: 27.11.2008 Balbir Singh and another. ....... Appellants through Shri Vikram Bali, Advocate. Versus Major Singh and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 and 2 through Nemo. Respondent no.3 through Shri Paul S.Saini,Advocate. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 through Nemo. Respondent no.6 through S.K.Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal by the claimants is directed against award dated 8.10.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 30 of 15.5.1986. Satnam Singh, aged 19 years, son of the appellants, lost his life in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.2.1986. A claim petition was preferred by the appellants for grant of compensation on account of his death. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck no. PJP-5527 by its driver-Major F.A.O.No.151 of 1988 -2- .... Singh, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.400/- per month. Thereafter, it fixed the dependency of the appellants at Rs.2500/- P.A. and applied a multiplier of `14' to arrive at a figure of Rs.35,000/- which was awarded to them as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. The Tribunal fixed the liability of the owner, driver and the insurance company of the offending truck to satisfy the award and directed them to do so jointly as well as severally. Dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are in appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned award deserves to be modified. The deceased was aged 19 years at the time of his death and even if he was to be treated as a labourer in 1986, he would be earning something between Rs.800/- to Rs.900/- per month. No doubt, the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.300/- per month plus other allowances which have not been quantified. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be safe to take the income of the deceased as Rs.800/- per month. Learned counsel for respondent no.3-Insurance Company of the offending truck, vehemently opposed the enhancement of the compensation by saying that as per their own showing of the appellants, the deceased was earning only Rs.300/- per month. F.A.O.No.151 of 1988 -3- .... The Court is not oblivious to the fact that it is not possible to sustain oneself on the meagre amount of Rs.300/- per month and, therefore, having regard to the totality of the circumstances including the prevailing rates of wages of a labourer, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.800/- per month. It is a settled principle of law that where the income is meagre, normally the cut of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the victim is not to be applied and rather, on rough guess work, some deduction is to be made on that count. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the dependency of the appellants is fixed at Rs.600/- per month, i.e., Rs.7200/- per annum, after making a deduction of Rs.200/- for the personal expenses of the deceased. As noticed above, the deceased was 19 years of age. Therefore, the multiplier of `11' would be just and appropriate. In this way, the compensation works out to Rs.79200/-. Besides, Rs.10000/- are allowed as funeral expenses, whereas a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded on account of loss of love & affection and loss of estate etc. Accordingly, the appellants are held entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.1,39,200/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of actual payment. The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest F.A.O.No.151 of 1988 -4- .... shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. November 27,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge