The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the directives laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009, which provided guidelines for determining compensation in motor accident claim cases.

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

This is an appeal preferred by the claimants/appellants seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Briefly noticed, the claimants preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of Yash Pal Sharma in a motor vehicle accident. Claimants were the widow and two minor children of deceased Yash Pal Sharma.

3. Claimants had asserted that Yash Pal Sharma was serving as a Postman in Post Office Sector-18, Chandigarh and on 15.10.1998 deceased was going from Post Office Sector-18, Chandigarh on a bicycle to his village Raipur Khurd. At about 4:45 P.M., when he reached between villages Hallomajra and Raipur Khurd, a truck bearing registration No.PB-12-C-1333 driven by respondent No.1/Gurdial Singh (driver) in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and struck against the bicycle of Yash Pal Sharma and on account of which he fell down and received grievous injuries. Yash Pal Sharma was removed to PGI, Chandigarh but he succumbed to the injuries suffered on the following date i.e. 16.10.1998. FIR No.117, dated 15.10.1998, under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered with Police Station Sector-31, Chandigarh. Deceased was stated to be 37 years of age on the date of accident. Deceased serving as a Postman was claimed to be in a permanent job and was drawing salary of Rs.4500/- and in addition thereto, earning Rs. 1500/- per month from tuition work. He was stated to be the sole bread earner of the family. Offending truck was stated to be owned by respondent No.2 i.e. M/s Mulkh Raj Harjinder Kumar and was insured with respondent No.3/the New India Insurance Company.

4. It may be noticed that the claim petition was primarily contested by the Insurance Company.

5. On the pleadings on record, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

(1) Whether Yashpaul died in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 15.10.1998 near village Raippur Khurd due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.PB-12-C-1333 by respondent No.1? OPP

(2) Whether claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? OPP

(3) Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and legal driving license at the time of accident? If, so, its effect on present petition? OPR3.

(4) Relief.”

6. Since the only question involved in the present appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation, as such, only the findings returned by the Tribunal as regards issue No.2 are being adverted.

7. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.4407/- P.M. A cut of 1/3rd was imposed and the monthly dependency of the claimants after deducting 1/3rd from the salary of the deceased was arrived at Rs.3038/-. Age of the deceased was accepted as 37 year and multiplier of 13 was adopted. Annual dependency was arrived at Rs.36,456/- by adopting the multiplier of 13, the amount of compensation, which the claimants were held entitled was determined as Rs.4,73,928/-. That apart, claimants were allowed Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. Total amount of compensation determined was Rs.4,75,928/-. It was also directed that the amount of compensation would be paid to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 06.11.1998 till the date of release of payment.

8. Counsel for the appellants and for the contesting respondent/Insurance Company have been heard at length.

9. It would be apposite to notice that respondent No.3/Insurance Company had also assailed the award of Tribunal dated 16.03.2001 by filing FAO-2321-2001 and it has been conceded by learned counsel representing the Insurance Company that such appeal has since been dismissed by this Court.

10. In the considered view of this Court, the compensation awarded to the claimants is on the lower side and not in conformity with the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National I