The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly the Second Schedule, in determining compensation for the death of a minor and a housewife in a vehicular accident.

Jaspal Singh, J.

By this common judgment, this Court intends to dispose of three appeals bearing FAO No. 2795 of 2013, FAO No. 2796 of 2013 and FAO No. 5835 of 2013 being outcome of one and same award dated May 01, 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for brevity, "Tribunal?).

2. FAO Nos. 2795 and 2796 of 2013 have been preferred by Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited (for short, "Insurance Company?) challenging the quantum of compensation awarded on account of death Jaspreet Singh @ Jasanpreet Singh @ Jassa, aged about 7 years and Paramjeet Kaur, occurred in a vehicular accident on July 07, 2012 at Ambala Road, Pehowa, allegedly due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No.PB-11AS-8980 by Nirmal Singh (respondent No. 1 in the claim petition). Through FAO No. 5835 of 2013, Gurmeet Singh and others have sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of the death of Paramjit Kaur.

3. While assailing the impugned award in connection with death of Jaspreet Singh @ Jasanpreet Singh @ Jassa, it has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company that learned Tribunal while deciding claim petition, preferred under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "Act?), has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,26,000/- as total compensation. The amount of compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive, contrary to the settled law as well as evidence available on file. There is no basis for assessing the income of deceased which has been determined to the tune of Rs. 6,050/- per month keeping in view the income of father of the deceased. There is no such provision in the Act. Moreover, learned Tribunal has also lost sight of the fact that Jaspreet Singh @ Jasanpreet Singh @ Jassa was 7 years of age, as per Birth Certificate Ex.P9, at the time of his death in accident. Learned Tribunal further made a deduction of 50% and thus, took annual income of minor deceased @ Rs. 36,300/- and applied multiplier of 20. The finding recorded by learned Tribunal in this regard is highly perverse and income of minor is to be taken only @ Rs. 15,000/- per annum as per Second Schedule of the Act. The dependency of the parents is to be taken to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per annum after deducting 1/3rd and multiplier of 15 is to be applied in case the age of deceased is between 10-15 years. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to observations made in case R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others, AIR 2009 SC 2506.

4. While relying upon another judgment in Santosh Rani vs. Ranjit Singh, 2008 ACJ 1405, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was awarded in case of a minor of 13 years but in the case in hand, compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,26,000/- has been awarded which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as against the provisions of the Act.

5. While challenging the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal on account of death of Paramjeet Kaur wife of Gurmeet Singh, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company that income of the household lady has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month which is on a higher side and contrary to the settled proposition of law. Infact, there is no proof of income being earned by deceased Paramjeet Kaur. At the most, services rendered by house maker can be assessed to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. So, amount awarded is higher, excessive, exorbitant and without any basis. The learned Tribunal has also lost sight of the fact that the claimant himself relied upon the judgment passed in Arun Kumar Agarwal and another vs. National Insurance Company and others, 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 827 (SC) in which 1/3rd income of husband of deceased was taken as monthly income of the house- wife and if the same ratio is applied in the present case, compensation works out to Rs