Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.:- Application for condonation of delay

Despite sufficient opportunity, no reply has been filed by the respondents.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 89 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

Main appeal

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide award dated 21.12.2010, on account of the death of Sukhdev Singh, in a motor vehicular accident. Respondent No.4 has also filed crossobjection.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was a carpenter and he was employed in Dubai. However, the learned Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.3000/- per month, which is on the lower side, whereas, no amount has been awarded towards future prospects. The deceased was the sole bread earner of the family. He left behind old parents and widow. The deceased was 34 years of age at the time of his death and therefore in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. DTC and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107] : 2009(3) RCR (Civil), 77 the multiplier of 16 should have been applied. The amount awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses is on the lower side.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4- crossobjector submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly apportioned the award. The said respondent was the wife of the deceased. He cites Sunita vs. Ram Kumar, 2012(4) Law Herald 3325 and states that the wife after her remarriage is entitled to full compensation.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that just and appropriate compensation has been awarded. He prays for the dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. The factum of death of Sukhdev Singh on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road accident is not disputed. He left behind his widow, and old parents aged about 72 years of mother and 77 years of father. He was the sole bread earner of the family. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC)] : 2013 (9) SCC 54, in para 11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

“11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi’s case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the self employed and person on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self employed or persons of fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.”

7. In the present case, the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of occurrence. Thus, taking in to consideration the age of the deceased, 50% increase in the income of the deceased with regard to the future prospects and multiplier of 16 deserve to be allowed. Ordered accordingly.

8. The untimely death of Sukhdev was a great shock to his family. He was the sole bread earner of the family. As is evident from the record, no amount has been awarded towards loss of love and affection to the mother. This Court feels that the amount awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral and last rites expenses is also inadequate. Keeping in view the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others, [2013(3) Law Herald (SC) 2154] : (2013-3) PLR 776, the compensation under the