VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA,J. - (1.) The claimant-appellants complaining of inadequacy in awarding just and reasonable compensation as contemplated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; while adjudicating upon their claim petition vide award dated 29th September, 2008; have approached this Court for enhancement of the award.
(2.) Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised herein are that the claimant-appellants instituted a claim petition for the loss suffered by them on account of death of their son, namely, Sita Ram, in a road accident, which occurred on 9th October, 2007. It is pleaded case of the appellants that the deceased son was aged about 26 years and was earning an amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month out of the milk dairy. However, the Tribunal concluded the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month in absence of any material evidence to substantiate the claim of monthly income as Rs. 7,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 8 on the basis of the age of the dependent parents of the deceased, assessed the 'loss of dependency' and allowed the claim petition for compensation of a total amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees : Two Lakhs & Ten Thousands).
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of the appeal, has raised two issues for consideration and adjudication seeking enhancement of the award. Firstly, for application of lesser multiplier of 8 is contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 121, which has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequents judgments including 3 Judge Bench in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65. Thus, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied for the deceased was 26 years of age.;