- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 21.12.2010, on account of the death of Sukhdev Singh, in a motor vehicular accident. Respondent No. 4 has also filed cross-objection. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was a carpenter and he was employed in Dubai. However, the learned Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 3000/- per month, which is on the lower side, whereas, no amount has been awarded towards future prospects. The deceased was the sole bread earner of the family. He left behind old parents and widow. The deceased was 34 years of age at the time of his death and therefore in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. DTC and another, 2009 155 PunLR 22the multiplier of 16 should have been applied. The amount awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses is on the lower side.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4- cross objector submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly apportioned the award. The said respondent was the wife of the deceased. He cites Sunita v. Ram Kumar, 2012 4 LawHerald(P&H) 3325 and states that the wife after her remarriage is entitled to full compensation.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that just and appropriate compensation has been awarded. He prays for the dismissal of the appeal.;