JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

CM-335-CII-2025

1. The present application has been filed seeking restoration of the main appeal i.e. FAO-3399-2007, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, vide order dated 16.12.2024 passed by this Court.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the main appeal i.e. FAO-3399-2007, is ordered to be restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself.

FAO-3399-2007 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 04.05.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on account of death of Harbhajan Singh in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 12.03.2005.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He further contends that at the time of alleged accident, deceased-Amarjit Singh was 50 years old; was working as a Granthi in Gurudwara Kalghidhar Sahib at Mandi Gobindgarhand and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 8 instead of 9. He further contends that no amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the heads of future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed by the learned Tribunal and the amount of compensation as assessed by it has rightly been granted. He prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. A perusal of the award shows that as per Post Mortem Report, deceased-Amarjit Singh was 55-60 years old. A perusal of the award further shows that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month by taking into consideration the minimum wages of skilled person prevalent at that time, as no documentary proof was placed on record by the appellant/claimant to show that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. A perusal of the award further shows that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 9 instead of 10. A perusal of the award further shows that no amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the heads of future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:-

"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of