F.A.O. No. 4192 of 2010 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4192 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 6th, 2011 Smt. Shanti Devi and another .... Appellants Versus Dalip Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. R.S.Madan, Advocate, for respondent No.4-Insurance Company. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is an appeal brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Hisar (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 19.12.2009 in a sum of ` 1,57,206/- on the death of their unmarried son, named Rakesh. The claim petition brought by the appellants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) is for F.A.O. No. 4192 of 2010 2 .. compensation in a sum of ` 20,00,000/-. The facts necessary to decide this appeal can be reproduced as under: On 27.2.2003, Rakesh (deceased) along with one Krishan was coming from village Madanheri in a tractor bearing registration No.RJ-31R-5714 after loading sugar-cane in the trolly attached thereto. Rakesh was going to his field at Kanau, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). At about 8.00 p.m. they were in the revenue estate of Hansi, 16 kilometers away from Hansi towards Delhi. In the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration No.HR-39-7767 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Hansi and the back portion of the truck had hit the tractor on account of which tractor fell in roadside pits. Rakesh suffered multiple injuries. He was taken to General Hospital, Hansi. As his condition was serious, he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. He was, however, taken to CMC Hisar. He succumbed to his injuries on 3.3.2003. A sum of ` 80,000/- is claimed to have been spent in his treatment and last rites. Respondents No.1 to 3 did not opt to contest the claim. The claim petition has been resisted by respondents No. 4 and 5. Respondent no.4, the insurer has claimed that the truck was being driven at the relevant time by a person not holding a valid and effective driving licence. It was even denied to be insured with the answering respondent at the time of accident. The accident is denied to have taken place with the truck in question. The other averments of the claimants have been F.A.O. No. 4192 of 2010 3 .. denied. It is averred that a false case was got registered with police against respondent No.1. Respondent No. 5 has claimed that a false claim petition had been filed just to grab compensation. He has denied all the averments of the petitioners. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 25.8.2006:- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No. HR- 39-7767 by respondent No.1 Dalip Singh? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation on account of death of Rakesh. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claimants are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present petition? OPR. 4. Relief. On 26.2.2008, the following additional issues were framed in the case:- 4. Whether the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-39-7767 was being driven by respondent No.1 without holding effective driving licence? OPR-3 5. Whether the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-39/7767 was being driven by respondent No.1 in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy? OPR-3. F.A.O. No. 4192 of 2010 4 .. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of ` 1,57,206 to the claimants vide the impugned award. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. R.A.Sheoran, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Jainainder Saini, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and Mr. R.S.Madan, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance company. I have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellants has questioned the award on two aspects. The first is, the income of the deceased which is assessed by learned Tribunal at ` 3,000/- per month and is claimed by the appellants to be too low. The second is the aspect of multiplier. Learned Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 7 to assess the compensation in this case which is again claimed to be incorrect. According to him, the multiplier that should have been adopted in this case is of 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has, thus, submitted that the income taken by the Tribunal of the deceased should be increased to ` 4,000/- per month and adopting the multiplier of 9, the compensation should be assessed. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has submitted that there was no evidence on the record to prove the income of the deceased and in the absence of the same, the income of a F.A.O. No. 4192 of 2010 5 .. daily wage worker is taken. He has submitted that multiplier in a case of death of an unmarried person would be governed by the age of the claimants and when one of the claimants, namely, Kanshi Ram is 65 years old, the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal cannot be said to be wrong in any manner. People living in village side do not have any documentary evidence regarding their income. For the deceased, it is claimed that he was cultivating the land and also used to sell milk of the buffalos and was earning ` 12,000/- per month. Had there been the evidence that the deceased was a daily wage worker, the income taken by the Tribunal could have been said to be proper. It is not a case of daily wage worker. The deceased had been an agriculturist and normally, an agriculturist sells milk also. There was no material before learned Tribunal to discard the statement of Kanshi Ram, claimant, who appeared as PW-4 in this case and there was nothing before the Tribunal to say that the deceased was a daily wage worker, whose income could be assessed at ` 3,000/- per month. In these circumstances, I hold that the income of the deceased could not be assessed below ` 4,000/- per month. The claimant, Kanshi Ram appearing as PW-4 has himself stated his age as 65 years in his affidavit, Ex. PW4/A. Even if the age of his wife Smt. Shanti Devi, the other claimant, is taken as 58 years, as claimed by her, the average of the two ages would come to 61-1/2 years and multiplier suggested for age group of 61 to 65 years would be applicable to this case, F.A.O. No. 4192 of 2010 6 .. which is 7 as per the 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. Consequently, taking the monthly income of the deceased at ` 4000/- and the multiplier of 7, the monthly dependency of the claimants, the parents of the deceased, comes to ` 2,000/- and multiplying it by 12, their annual dependency comes to ` 24,000/-. Multiplying the same with 7, the multiplier found suitable in this case, the petitioners are found to have lost a sum of ` 1,68,000/- in the death of Rakesh. Adding to it a sum of ` 24,206/-, rounded off to `24,200/- as spent on the treatment of the deceased and a sum of ` 10,000/- for loss of estate and funeral expenses, the claimants are found entitled to ` 2,02,200/- as compensation. Consequently, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from `1,57,206/- to ` 2,02,200/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 6th, 2011 som