- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award dated 11.11.2013 passed by the MACT, Hoshiarpur.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 12.03.2012 at about 6.30 p.m. Ashok Kumar (since deceased) was driving motor cycle bearing no. PB - 07Q -3340 and was returning from village Nasrala to his native village Chak Gujran. Piara Lal son of Harnam Dass was following him on another motor cycle. When Ashok Kumar reached Hoshiarpur -Jalandhar Road, a tempo traveller bearing No. PB -01 -7134 came from opposite side being driven in a very rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed struck against the motor cycle of the deceased with full force on coming to wrong side of the road due to which the deceased was stuck in the front wheel of the tempo traveller and was dragged to some distance and received various multiple grievous injuries. He was shifted to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur but he died on the way to hospital. He was 25 years of age at the time of his death. The Tribunal presumed him to be a labourer, assessed his monthly income at Rs. 4000/ - to which deduction of 50% was applied towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 30% increase was granted to him towards future prospects and multiplier of 18 was applied. Amount of Rs. 25,000/ each was awarded for funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. In this way the total compensation awarded to the claimants was Rs. 6,21,600/ -.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has primarily argued on the correctness of the view taken by this Court in FAO No. 5181 of 2010, Nanak Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another decided on 17.01.2014 where this Court held as follows: - " Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 -PRTC has further argued that the Tribunal has considered only the age of the deceased while the age of the claimant has to be kept in mind for the purpose of multiplier and has relied upon the judgments in U.P. State Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, 1996 4 SCC 362, Ramesh Singla and others v. Satbir Singh and another, 2008 1 SCC 667and Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. And another, 2010 14 SCC 575, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a different provision by stating that the multiplier should be applied after taking into the consideration the age of the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants has countered by arguing that the multiplier of 18 has to be applied instead of 16 according to the age of the deceased. He has further argued that in Sarla Verma v. DTC, 2009 6 SCC 121, P.S.Somanathan and others v. District Insurance Officer and another, 2011 3 SCC 566and Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2012 ACJ 2002; the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that only the age of the deceased shouldbe kept into FAO No.5181 of 2010 -3 -consideration while fixing the multiplier. In my opinion, while adopting a multiplier, the ageof the deceased as well as the age group of the claimants is a valid consideration. The expectancy of life of deceased is to be taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion as to for how many years he could have supported the claimants. So far as the claimants are concerned their age -group is required to be considered to arrive at a conclusion as to for how many years they would have survived and could have enjoyed the dependency allowance of the deceased. Keeping in view the conflicting decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking support from the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v Raj Rani 1998 (1) ACJ 175, in my considered view, the age of the deceased as well as the age group of the claimants is required to be taken into consideration while adopting a multiplier for determining the dependency to award compensation to the claimant." Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the formula worked out by this Court of taking the average of the age of the deceased and the claimant is too simplistic and needs to be reworked. In my opinion this argument though not without certain merit has to be rejected. The endeavour of the law relating to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act has been jurisprudentially designed to be simplified so as to obviate the chances of an unruly discretion. The same argument could be used against multiplier system as well but, as has been noticed in a catena of judgments, there is an element of guess work necessarily involved in putting value to a limb or a life. In the circumstances I am not persuaded to differ with the view taken.;