IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C. Review No. 140 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Lachhmi Dass & others …Petitioner. Versus HRTC & another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) By means of this review petition, the petitioner prays that the judgment dated 24.08.2011, passed by this Court be recalled. 2. The basic point raised in the review petition is that the multiplier should have been applied keeping in view the age of the deceased and not the age of the claimants. In this behalf, reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and other versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, wherein the Apex Court, while dealing with the issues to be determined by the Tribunal, held as follows: 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2:- “18. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” 3. Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in P.S. Somanathan and others versus District Insurance Officer and another, (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 566. 4. The Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transpoprt Corporation, Trivandrum versus Susamma Thomas (Mrs) and others, (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 176, has clearly held that multiplier will depend upon the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents, whichever is higher. The observations of the Apex Court are as follows: “The multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take for instance a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs 10,000. If a sum of Rs 1,00,000 is invested at 10% annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency, perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5% per annum and not 10% then the multiplier need to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rs 10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier, i.e., the number of years' purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances, for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last etc. Usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down -: 3:- accordingly as the age of the deceased (or that of the dependents, whichever is higher) goes up. (emphasis supplied)” 5. The aforesaid dicta of the Apex Court was approved by a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others versus Trilok Chandra and others, (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 362, and the Apex Court upheld the observations of the Two Judges Bench in Susamma Thomas's case supra that the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as a maximum and this will come down accordingly as age of the deceased or that of the dependents, whichever is higher, goes up. 6. It is this principle which has been followed by this Court time and again and also in the latest judgment of this Court in Naina Thakur and others versus Punjab Women's Welfare Colleges Board and other, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 1449. 7. It would be pertinent to mention that there is a proper rationale behind applying the multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased or the dependents, whichever is higher. Supposing the deceased, aged only about 25 years is bachelor and his parents are more than 65 years old; it is their dependency which has to be calculated and the multiplier has to be on the lower side. If the same person aged about 25 years of age leaves behind a widow of same age and two children of tender age, the multiplier should be much higher, because it is the dependency of the widow and minor children which has to be calculated. Therefore, both, the English Courts as well as the Courts in India, have followed the practice of -: 4:- applying the multiplier keeping in view the age of the claimants/dependents or the deceased, whichever is higher. 8. The Apex Court in Ramesh Singh and another versus Satbir Singh and another, 2008 ACJ 814, dealt with this question in detail and held as follows: “4.We have given anxious consideration to these contentions and are of the opinion that the same are devoid of any merits. Considering the law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, 2005 ACJ 1131 (SC), it is clear that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or claimants whichever is higher. Admittedly, the age of the father was 55 years. The question of mother's age never cropped up because that was not the contention raised even before the trial court or before us. Taking the age to be 55 years, in our opinion, the courts below have not committed any illegality in applying the multiplier of 8 since the father was running 56th year of his life. 5. The learned counsel relying on the Second Schedule to the Act contended that the deceased being about 22 years of age, a multiplier of 16 or 17 should have been granted. It is undoubtedly true that section 163-A was brought on the statute book to shorten the period of litigation. The burden to prove negligence or fault on the part of driver and other allied burden under section 140 or 166 were really cumbersome and time- consuming. Therefore, as a part of social justice, a system was introduced via section 163-A wherein such burden was avoided and thereby a speedy remedy was provided. The relief under section 163-A has been held not to be additional but alternate. The Schedule provided has been threadbare discussed in various pronouncements including Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 934 (SC). Second Schedule is to be used not only referring to age of victim but also other factors relevant therefor. Complicated questions of facts and law arising in accident cases cannot be answered all times by relying on mathematical equations. In fact in U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), Ahmedi, J. (as the chief Justice then was) has pointed out the shortcomings in the said Schedule and has held that the Schedule can only be used as a guide. It was also held that selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. If a young man is killed in the accident leaving behind aged parent who may not survive long enough to match with a high multiplier provided by the Second Schedule, then the court has to offset such high multiplier and balance the same with the short life expectancy of the claimants. That precisely has happened in this case. Age of the parents was held as -: 5:- a relevant factor in case of minor's death in recent decision in Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim, 2007, ACJ 2816 (SC). In our considered opinion, the courts below right struck the said balance.” 9. This dictum of the Apex Court has again been applied in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Shyam Singh and others, 2011 ACJ 1990, wherein also the Apex Court applied the multiplier by taking average age of the parents of the deceased. 10. Therefore, I find no merit in the review petition, which is dismissed accordingly. (Deepak Gupta) Judge October 31, 2011 (rajni)