The claim of a minor child for compensation cannot be dismissed, and the calculation of compensation should consider the deceased's income and the dependency of the claimants.

Ritu Bahri, J.

CM No. 13376-CII of 2013

There is a delay of 122 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 122 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. CM stands disposed of.

FAO No. 2998 of 2013

4. The appellants/claimants have come up in appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 24.09.2012, whereby their claim petition has been dismissed. The appeal has been filed by Anshul @ Pankaj (minor) son of deceased Asha and husband Naveen Kumar.

5. Facts not in dispute are that Asha (since deceased) was married with claimant No.2 Naveen Kumar on 27.06.2002. The couple was leading a happy married life. Master Anshul (minor) claimant No.1 was born out of this wedlock on 13.10.2003. After birth of Anshul, Asha was allured by her parents on the point of separate living. Claimant No.2 did not accept her demand, so Asha left her matrimonial house on 25.03.2006 and started living with her parents at village Jondhi, District Jhajjar. She was M.A. Qualified and was doing teaching work. By way of tuition work she was earning about Rs. 6,000/- per month. She was getting coaching for admission in B.Ed. Course. When Naveen (claimant No.2) categorically refused to accept their demand of separate living, her father concocted a story of harassment and dowry demand instigating her daughter Asha (deceased) and got registered a false case under Section 498-A IPC against claimant No.2 and his family members. Relations of claimant No.2 with his in laws were not cordial, but the deceased was interested to live with her husband (claimant No.2) and he too also never wanted to remain away from her.

6. On 27.07.2007, she met with a roadside accident at Bhiwani Road Octroi Chowk, Rohtak. Immediately, she was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak by unknown person. Claimant No.2 was also informed telephonically. He rushed to PGIMS, Rohtak and found his wife lying unconscious in A&E Ward. Her lower limb was crushed by the trailer. Her parents also reached in PGIMS, Rohtak. His father-in-law got an opportunity. He joined hand with the police and owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1) and got registered a criminal case against claimant No.2. In fact, it was a road accident, which took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Claimant No.2 visited the spot and on enquiry, he came to know through Ashok Kumar son of Satyawan resident of Indira Colony, Rohtak and Ram Nath son of Dharam Chand resident of Bhiwani Chungi, Rohtak, who had witnessed the accident as they were having their shops at the spot that it was a roadside accident and took place due to the rash and negligent driving of trailer bearing registration No. HR-55C-3206 by respondent No.1.

7. On account of death of Asha, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Claimant No.2-Naveen Kumar before the Tribunal has admitted that in the backdrop of the dispute between him and the wife (Asha), a petition under Section 304-B of the IPC was registered against him and this fact was admitted by claimant No.2-Naveen Kumar that he was facing a trial after registration of the FIR. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in view of the above fact. However, the Tribunal proceeded to calculate the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month as she was a household lady. Dependency of the claimants after deducting the ?rd on personal expenses came to Rs. 2,000/-. Thus, annual dependency of the claimants came to Rs. 24,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 12). Multiplier of 18 was applied as the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident and after applying the multiplier of 18 the claimants were found entitled to Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 18) as compensation.

8. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned or