Parveen And Others vs Mehar Singh And Others on 6 November, 2009

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


F.A.O. No. 3849 of 2009 (O&M)

Date of decision: November 06, 2009

Parveen and others
                                                          .. Appellants

                   Vs.

Mehar Singh and others
                                                          .. Respondents

Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

Present:    Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.
            Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate
            for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

A.N. Jindal, J
            Notice of motion.
            On the asking of the court, Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company.
            Service of the remaining respondents is dispensed with.
            This appeal for enhancement has been preferred by the
claimants against the award dated 15.4.2009 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur, (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding
compensation to the tune of Rs.5,90,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Though the respondents
have neither challenged the negligence nor their liability, yet, the claimants
have come up for enhancement of the compensation.
            The sole ground as set up in the appeal is that the deceased was
24 years old at the time of incident, but the Tribunal fell in error while
ignoring to apply the appropriate multiplier. In this regard he has referred
me to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil)
77, and has urged that the Tribunal should have awarded compensation
while applying the multiplier of 18 instead of 16 in this case.
            Arguments heard.
            In Sarla Verma's case (supra) it was observed that in case the
people die in the age group of 15 to 25 the appropriate multiplier to be
 F.A.O. No. 3849 of 2009                                        -2-

                                     ***

applied should be 18. As such, the error committed by the Tribunal needs to
be rectified. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has
not disputed this argument. The claimant-appellant No.1 has also sought
consortium on account of untimely death of her husband.

In the result, I partly accept the appeal modify the award and
grant a sum of Rs.72000/- on account of the pecuniary loss and Rs.10,000/-
on account consortium. As such, the claimants would be entitled to receive
compensation to the tune of Rs.82,000/- over and above the award amount
along with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal.

No orders as to costs.

November 06, 2009                                        (A.N. Jindal)
deepak                                                         Judge