SITARA BEGUM Vs. BHURI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the claimants' appeal seeking modification of the award dated 09.01.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (here -in -after referred to as the Tribunal). They also seek enhancement of the compensation allowed to them for the death of Naeem Khan son of appellants no.1 & 2 and brother of appellants no.3 to 7.

(2.) IT would be useful to refer to the facts first. Naeem Khan was 22 years old and was stated to be working at a chemist shop in Faridabad. He died in a vehicular accident on 13.01.2012. The claimants were unable to establish that the deceased was working at the chemist shop and his income was taken at Rs.4,500/ - per month and giving an increase of 30% while relying upon the decision in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd, 2012 2 RCR(Civ) 882, the computation was made taking the annual income at Rs.70,200/ -. The multiplier of 13 was applied keeping the age of the parents. A specific finding was recorded that only the mother was entitled to the compensation. It was noted that the claimants had intentionally given a different age in the affidavit to mislead the Tribunal with a view to claim an exaggerated amount. While apportioning the compensation, the Tribunal allowed a major amount to the mother and the rest was distributed amongst other claimants in the ratio detailed in paragraph no.38 of the award.

(3.) THE submission on behalf of the appellants was that in the case of unmarried son where the minimum wages are taken, there should be an addition of 50% towards future prospects and multiplier should be based considering the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents and the Tribunal had committed a serious error in applying the multiplier of 13 and appropriate multiplier should be 18. It was urged that on issue no.2, the mother alone was held to be entitled to compensation but while apportioning the compensation, all the claimants had been granted compensation and in that case, the deduction on personal expenses should not have been 50% and they were entitled to higher amount for loss of estate and funeral expenses. Reliance was placed upon Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2012 ACJ 2002 and M. Mansoor and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, 2013 ACJ 2849.