Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Kaur & Another vs Dalbir Singh & Others on 9 May, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No.2286 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.2286 of 2011
In MACT Case No.51 of 2009
Date of decision: 9.5.2012.
Dalbir Kaur & another ...Appellants
Versus
Dalbir Singh & others ....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. B.S. Dhillon, Advocate
for the appellants
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for respondent.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No 7714 C-II of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of sixty days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount awarded vide impugned award dated 27.7.2010, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar on account of death of deceased Bhagwant Singh @ Bhag Singh @ Bhaga, in vehicular accident that took place on 18.12.2007.
Brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.2007, Bhag Singh @ Bhaga @ Bhagwant Singh was going from Fatehpur to Dhapal on his bicycle. When he reached near Link Road Dhapal, FAO No.2286 of 2011 2 on Jhabal to Amritsar road, a truck bearing No PJA-9565, being driven by Dalbir Singh in a rash and negligent manner struck against the bicycle of Bhagwant Singh @ Bhag Singh @ Bhaga. As a result thereof, the deceased along with his bicycle fell down and crushed under the wheels of the truck and died on the spot.
The claimants-appellants preferred claim petition bearing No.51 of 2009, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Amritsar which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 27.7.2010 awarding an amount of Rs.2,12,000/- on account of death of deceased Bhagwant Singh @ Bhag Singh @ Bhaga, in the vehicular accident that took place on 18.12.2007.
Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants came up in the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount.
The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2000/- whereas, the deceased was working as a Carpenter and was earning Rs.3250/- per month. He further contends that the appellant is a widowed mother of the deceased and was 42 years of age at the time of the accident. Therefore, the multiplier of 13 has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal, which ought to have been 14, keeping in view the age of the mother of the deceased. He further contends that the deduction towards the personal expenditure of the deceased is also on the higher side.
The learned counsel for the respondent contends that an adequate and sufficient amount has already been granted by the FAO No.2286 of 2011 3 learned Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the instant case, it is the established fact that the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of the accident and was supporting his family which includes his widowed mother. Therefore, this Court feels that the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced at Rs.3000/- per month. Order accordingly.
The age of the widowed mother of the deceased was 42 years at the time of the accident, therefore, the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is also on the lower side and the same ought to have been 14 instead of 13 as per the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. Ordered accordingly.
No other point has been raised.
The enhanced amount comes to Rs.1,28,000/-( 3000/- (monthly income) X 12 X 2/3 X 14 (enhanced Multiplier)+4000/- ( awarded by the Tribunal under the head funeral expenses) =Rs.3,40,000/- (3,40,000-2,12,000 (amount already awarded by the Tribunal)=Rs.1,28,000/- which shall be payable by the respondents to the appellant No.1 only within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which, they shall also be entitled to the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the present appeal, till its FAO No.2286 of 2011 4 realization.
This appeal is partly allowed with the above modification in the impugned award.
9.5.2012 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) aarti JUDGE