JUDGMENT Uma Nath Singh, J. (Oral) - On due consideration, C.M. Nos. 25700-CII and 25701-CII of 2005 for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal are allowed for the reasons given therein and the delay of 126 days in filing and 94 days in refiling are condoned. 2. Heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused the records referred to during the arguments. 3. This judgment shall also dispose of connected F.A.O. Nos. 5509 of 2005 (Bikramjit Singh v. Satpal Kumar and other); 5510 of 2005 (Karamjeet Kaur and others v. Satpal Kumar and others) and 5518 of 2005 (Sukhwant Kaur v. Satpal Kumar and others), as all the four FAOs for enhancement of compensation originate in the same accident, where a housewife and a child lost their lives whereas two other persons, who are also the claimants before us suffered injuries. 4. It appears that on 5.12.2003, at about 5 p.m., injured Smt. Sukhwant Kaur was going on the road from Chandigarh to Ambala in a car bearing registration No. HR-02-G-9443. The vehicle was being driven by one Gursewak Singh at a slow speed and also on the left side of the road. The other occupants of the car were Ms. Jagdeep Kaur, Master Gurkamal Singh, Smt. Surjit Kaur, Sh. Sukhdip Singh, Vikramjit Singh @ Vikram Singh and Gurmit Kaur. When the car crossed the Dhulkot barrier, a bus with registration No. HR-37-A-5328 appeared on the wrong side from the opposite direction. The vehicle which was being driven at a very fast speed struck against the car. As a result, all the occupants sustained serious injuries and they were shifted to a hospital immediately. Three occupants of the car namely Smt. Surjit Kaur, Master Sukhdeep Singh and driver Gursewak Singh succumbed to the injuries received in the accident whereas the injured suffered permanent disabilities. Hence, the claimants laid their claims for compensation before the Tribunal by way of filing separate petitions, which were, however, disposed of by the impugned common award. In all the claim petitions, Gurmit Kaur has been examined as PW-1, Vikramjit Singh as PW-2, Bhagwant Singh as PW-3, Kuldip Kumar as PW-4, Subash Chander as PW-5, Jagdip Kaur as PW-6 and Karamjit Kaur as PW-7. That apart, the injured witnesses namely Smt. Sukhwant Kaur and Vikramjit Singh have tendered into evidence their disability certificates as Ex. PA and Ex. PB respectively. That apart, the injured witnesses namely Smt. Sukhwant Kaur and Vikramjit Singh have tendered into evidence their disability certificates as Ex. PA and Ex. PB respectively. From the respondent side, the driving licence (Ex. R1) and its verification report (Ex. R2) and also the Insurance Policy (Ex. R3 and Ex. RX) were produced before the Court. It appears that there is no cross-appeal by the Insurance Company or the respondents, pending before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Smt. Surjit Kaur was aged about 55 years at the time of accident. Though, she was a housewife but in her case, only a meagre amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- has been awarded, which is short of compensation awarded in a similar case by Honble the Apex Court reported as Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2001 ACJ 1735. Learned counsel also submitted that in the death case of Master Sukhdip Singh also, the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal appears to be grossly inadequate. In the cases of the injured persons, learned counsel submitted that looking to the injuries and the extent of disability suffered by them, and the expenses incurred and to be incurred in future, the compensation amounts appear to be on lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the earnings of the victims have been determined only on the notional basis, therefore, even the deduction of 1/3rd of amount to be spent on themselves by the deceased should not be interfered with. According to learned counsel the post-mortem report, mentions the age of the deceased housewife as 60 years. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels and find that the amounts of compensation awarded in all the four cases being certainly on lower side do not meet the ends of justice. As regards the death case of Smt. Surjit Kaur, as per the claim petition, she was of 55 years, however, the post-mortem report indicated her age to be approximately 60. The claimants are her husband and four adult sons. She was a housewife with a large joint family. The Tribunal has fixed her notional income at Rs. 24,000/- per annum and has deducted 1/3rd thereof to be spent on herself without a rational basis. The claimants are her husband and four adult sons. She was a housewife with a large joint family. The Tribunal has fixed her notional income at Rs. 24,000/- per annum and has deducted 1/3rd thereof to be spent on herself without a rational basis. However, the multiplier of 8 as applied in this case does not seem to be unreasonable. In the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra), where the deceased housewives were aged 34-59 years, value of their domestic services was assessed at Rs. 36,000/- per annum and the compensation amount was assessed by applying a suitable multiplier plus 50,000/- towards conventional amount. 7. Under the circumstances, applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, we fix the dependency amount at the rate of Rs. 36,000/- per annum, which on being multiplied by 8 would come to Rs. 2,88,000/-. As the deceased was the housewife with a large joint family which included her 60 years old husband and four adult sons, she would not be spending 1/3rd of her notional earning on herself. Accordingly, we hold that the amount to be deducted as spent on one-self would be 1/4th of the dependency amount. Thus, we direct the deduction of Rs. 9,000/- per annum under that head. After deduction of Rs. 90,000/-, the dependency amount would come to Rs. 27,000/- per annum. This amount on being multiplied by 8 (a suitable multiplier) would come to Rs. 2,16,000/-. This total amount would also carry the interest at the rate of 6%, as directed by the Tribunal from the date of publication. 8. In the death case of Sukhdeep Singh, a child of 7 years, his parents, namely Bhagwant Singh (father) and Karmajit Kaur (mother), are the claimants. It appears that the deceased was studying in Class II in Vishkarma Adrash School, Khizrabad, Kharar (Ropar) and there was no rebuttal of the evidence regarding the age of the deceased. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration, the young age group of the parents and that of the deceased child has fixed the notional income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and has deducted 1/3rd share as expenses on himself. Thus, the dependency amount has been assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per anum and the multiplier of 15 has been applied. Thus, the total amount of compensation has been worked out to Rs. 1,50,000/-. 15,000/- per annum and has deducted 1/3rd share as expenses on himself. Thus, the dependency amount has been assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per anum and the multiplier of 15 has been applied. Thus, the total amount of compensation has been worked out to Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra), the assessment of the compensation amount in the case of children between the age group of 5-10 has been discussed and the dependency amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- per child was fixed by applying the multiplier of 15. Thus, by applying the ratio of the judgment and the calculation, we grant the same amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 9. So far as the injury cases are concerned, Smt. Sukhwant Kaur was aged about 34 years at the time of accident and she has suffered 45 per cent disability. From the materials on record, it appears that she received injuries in hip, head and ear, and also fracture of right leg, apart from other multiple injuries. She was operated upon twice in the PGI, Chandigarh and spent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on her treatment. It further appears that during the course of treatment she was lodged in the Hospital from 5.12.2003 to 24.1.2004. Even after treatment, she is not able to walk without the help of clutches. As she has lost her husband in the accident and has suffered acute permanent disability, she is not able to look after her children. Learned counsel urged that due to the accident, she has also suffered loss of memory. Her MLR (Ex. P10) and follow up card (Ex. P11) were placed on record. Her disability certificate disclosed the disability to the extent of 45 per cent as per Ex. PA. In this background, we think it expedient, to enhance the compensation amount suitably to cover the loss caused due to the permanent disability. Thus, apart from the compensation amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- awarded under different heads, we grant Rs. 90,000/- (being Rs. 2,000/- for 1% permanent disability) to the claimant. On adding the amount (1,30,000 plus 9,000), the grand total would come to Rs. 2,20,000/-. The additional amount shall also carry the same rate of interest as granted by the Tribunal from the date of application. 10. As regards the second injured, claimant Vikramjit Singh, he has appeared as PW-2 and has also filed his affidavit as Ex. P19. On adding the amount (1,30,000 plus 9,000), the grand total would come to Rs. 2,20,000/-. The additional amount shall also carry the same rate of interest as granted by the Tribunal from the date of application. 10. As regards the second injured, claimant Vikramjit Singh, he has appeared as PW-2 and has also filed his affidavit as Ex. P19. He was medically treated in the PGI, Chandigarh and also in the General Hospital. He has been awarded the compensation only Rs. 23,900/-. It appears that in para 26 of the award, the Tribunal has committed factually error in holding that his disability certificate was not placed on the file of the Court. On the contrary, from the perusal of para 6 of the award, it appears that the disability certificate of claimant-Vikramjit Singh was placed on record as Ex. PB. We have also perused a certified copy of the disability certificate, which indicated some plating on the right forearm and also a deformity of nose. Thus, on the basis of the injuries, the disability has been assessed at 15%. Applying the above formula of Rs. 2,000/- for 1 per cent disability, we think it appropriate, under the obtaining circumstances to award Rs. 30,000/- under the head of permanent disability. As such, the total amount would come to Rs. 53,900/-. In the premises discussed herein above, all the four appeals are allowed in part to the extent of enhancement of the compensation amounts. Appeals partly allowed.