* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MACA No.393/2010 Date of Decision: Tulv 08. 2010 SALIK RAM & ANR Appellants through Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate versus GURDEEP KAUR & ANR Respondents through Mr. S.L.Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Ram Ashra Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? REKHA SHARMA. 1. (ORAL) The appellants are the parents of deceased Deepak. They filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act). The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by award dated March 31, 2010 has awarded them compensation to the tune of Rs.3,80,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition. The awarded amount has since been received by the claimants. However, they are still feeling aggrieved. Their grievance is that while calculatingthe income of the deceased, the Tribunal has deducted one-half towards the personal expenses MACA No.393/2010 ^ ^ Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified which he would have incurred upon himself had he remained alive, while as per the structured formula laid down in the Second Schedule to the Act, the deduction towards the personal expenses can only be made by one-third and not by one-half. Their further grievance is that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13 by taking into consideration the age of the father whereas the basis for the same should have been the age of the mother and had that been done, the correct multiplicand that would have applied was 15. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company is present on advance notice. He has not been able to counter the submission of the counsel for the appellants that the deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased should have been one-third and not one-half. As regards the multiplier, he submits that since the father of the deceased is also one of the claimants, the Tribunal has not committed any error in applying the multiplicand of 13 by taking into consideration his age. He further submits that assuming the multiplier has been wrongly applied, the Tribunal has under the head of non-pecuniary benefits granted more compensation to the appellants than'what is laid down in the Second Schedule to the Act and, therefore, any shortfall on account of wrong multiplier having been applied is offset by the excess amount given under the non-pecuniary benefits. The counsel, in fact, states that the Insurance Company is contemplating filing an appeal on that score. Admittedly, no appeal till date has been filed by the Insurance Company. If at all any such appeal is preferred, it shall be dealt with on its own merits. In so far as the present appeal is concerned, the MACANo.393/2010 ' Page 2 of 3 1- learned counsel for the appellants is right in submitting that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly deducted one-half towards the personal expenses of the deceased while assessing his income. The structured formula in the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act permits deduction of only one-third towards the expenses which the victim of the accident would have incurred towards maintaining himself. In view of the above, I direct the Claims Tribunal to recalculate the compensation by taking the personal expenses of the deceased as one-third. As regards the multipher, I am one with the counsel for the appellants that the basis of the same should have been the age of the mother and not that of the father of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the age of the mother is 44 years. The correct multiplier with reference to her age is 15. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal is directed to recalculate the compensation by applying the multiplier of 15. The case is remanded back to the concerned Tribunal to calculate the revised compensation within six weeks from today. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. JULY 08, 2010 ka MACANo.393/2010 REKHA SHARMA, J. Page 3 of 3 3