MEENA DEVI Vs. KARAMJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 14386-CII of 2008 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 209 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. This is an appeal by the claimants impugning the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, `the Tribunal') seeking further enhancement of compensation on account of the death of Surender Kumar. The appellants-claimants are his wife, children and parents. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,75,000/-, which was directed to be divided amongst the claimants.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that on 20.8.2004, deceased-Surender Kumar was going from Toll Tax Barrier, Uchana to his village Ramba after finishing his duty on motor cycle No. HR-05N-6028. After giving signal, the deceased was turning towards Ramba from G.T. Road, when the offending car bearing No. PB- 08-1817, driven by Karamjeet Singh came from the side of Taraori and hit the motor cycle of the deceased. Surender Kumar received serious injuries and ultimately died.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants raised very brief arguments, namely, that multiplier of 14 applied by the learned Tribunal considering the age of the deceased even to be 30-35 years, as is mentioned in the post-mortem report, is on lower side considering the schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submitted that the cut applied by the learned Tribunal towards the personal expenses of the deceased at 1/3rd is on higher side, considering the fact that the claimants are five in number being the widow, parents and two children. Relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, it was submitted that where the number of claimants are from 4 to 6, cut should be 1/4th. On the other hand, learned counsels for respondent No. 3 submitted that already fair amount of compensation has been assessed by the learned Tribunal considering the income and dependency of the deceased, which does not call for any interference by this Court. The age was considered on estimation and considering that multiplier of 14 is quite reasonable. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for he appellants. In the claim petition, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 28 years at the time of death. So was in the statement of PW1-Meena Devi, wife of the deceased. In post-mortem report (Ex. P7), the age of deceased- Surender was mentioned to be 30 years. Considering the aforesaid unrebutted evidence regarding the age of the deceased and also the Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for application of multiplier of 17, if the age of the deceased is between 30 and 35 years, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has not assessed fair amount of compensation by applying the multiplier of 14, which deserves to be corrected. Accordingly, in my opinion, multiplier of `17' is required to be applied as against `14'.