IMPORTANT POINT
Accident - Compensation - Limited liability of Insurance Company as per policy - Insurance Company is directed to pay entire amount of enhanced compensation to the claimants who would recover the excess amount from insured in accordance with law.

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. Parents, widow and children of deceased Bhinder Singh have approached this Court by way of present appeal for enhancement of compensation, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dated July 2, 1988.

2. At the very outset, counsel for the appellants stated that appellant No. 1, namely Gurdev Singh son of Kundan Lal, father of the deceased has expired during the pendency of appeal, hence his name may be deleted from the array of parties. Ordered accordingly.

3. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties.

4. Briefly the facts as evident from the award are that, on 22.6.1987 at about 1.30 P.M. the deceased was driving his scooter No. CHB 5282 on the left side of the road while a truck /tipper bearing No. CHW 6751 driven rashly and negligently by Gurmit Singh came from Ropar side and while taking the truck on the wrong side of the road it struck against the scooter, as a result of which Bhinder Singh died on the spot. Driver of the truck fled away from the spot. FIR was duly lodged with the police by an eye-witness Sh. Umrao Singh. In reply to the claim petition, the respondents admitted the accident but denied their liability by contending that the accident took place on account of negligence on the part of the deceased himself. For considering as to whether death of Bhinder Singh has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck, two issues were framed and on the basis of evidence, it was found that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver Gurmit Singh.

5. As far as the amount of compensation on account of death of Bhinder Singh is concerned, it was stated by the widow that he was engaged in the selling of milk, had a poultry farm, used to drive tractor and do agriculture work. He used to give Rs. 3,000/- per month to her.

6. Without considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal assessed compensation in lump sum at Rs. 1 lac, which was directed to be apportioned amongst the parents, widow and minor children (at the relevant time).

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have perused the documents on record.

8. It is stated in the evidence of father of the deceased that deceased was 25 years of age at the time of death. He was matriculate and used to do agriculture work, dairy farming and was also running a poultry farm. He was also used to drive the tractor. He stated that he owns 20 killas of land. It is further stated that deceased used to give him Rs. 3,000/- per month for household expenses. Jagat Ram, PW-7 stated that he used to buy about 50-60 Kgs. of milk everyday from deceased. In her evidence widow of deceased stated that he used to give her Rs. 3,000/- per month and had left behind her, his parents and three minor children aged about 4-1/2 years, 2-1/2 years and ten months old.

9. As is evident from the present case, the Tribunal has made assessment of compensation in lump-sum without determining the income of the deceased and also his dependency. Adoption of such as a course has been deprecated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), it has been held that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that multiplier method must be accepted for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainly to awards made all over the country.

10. On a total consideration of the matter and the evidence on record, the income of deceased, who was able bodied young person of 25 years of age at the time of death, is assessed at Rs. 1500/- per month and applying 1/3rd cut i.e. Rs. 500/-, the dependency is assessed at Rs. 1000/- per month i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 18, keepin