MACApp. 56/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.N.SARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.2.2003 p assed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia in MAC Case No.19 /2002 thereby awarding a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- to the claimants appellants deduct ing a sum of Rs 24,000/- as dependency from the annual income of the deceased. 2. I have heard Mr Kamal Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appella nts and Mr A Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, Insurance Company. None appears for the Respondent Nos 2 and 3. 3. One Laxman Shah, the husband of appellant No.1, son of the appellant No. 2 and father of minor children , appellant Nos 3 ,4 and 5 expired on 4.2.2002 wh ile he was traveling in a mini bus bearing registration No.AS-23-A-5119. During the relevant time, the deceased was running a grocery shop from which he used to earn an amount of Rs.7000/- per month. Out of the said incident, the deceased died on the spot. The appellants as claimants filed MAC Case No.19/2002 claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased as a result of rash and neglig ent driving of the vehicle. The vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co mpany, Respondent No.1. 4. The respondent contested the claim petition by filing the written statem ent. During the course of hearing, the claimants examined the appellant No.1 as witness No.1 who was cross examined by the opposite parties/respondents. The opp osite parties/respondents preferred not to examine any witness. The learned trib unal after considering the materials and evidence available on record, held the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.48,000/- and it was also found that the d eceased was aged 32 years at the time of his death. Accordingly by applying mul tiplier of 17 and deducting dependency of the claimants at Rs.24,000/- per annum ,assessed the compensation at Rs.4,08,000/- to which funeral expenses Rs.2000/ -as well as loss of consortium Rs.5000/-, loss of estate Rs.2500/- and lump sum medical expenses of Rs.2500/- were added ,thereby making a total compensation pa yable by the respondents Insurance company at Rs.4,20,000/-. It was further awar ded that the aforesaid amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till payment. 5. Mr Agarwal has submitted that though there are various aspects involved in this appeal, but the appellants would confine only to the point relating to t he assessment of the dependency of the claimants at Rs.24,000/- per month by the learned tribunal. Referring to a decision of the Apex Court reported in the cas e of Sarla Verma (Smti) and others, Appellants vs. Delhi Transport Corporation a nd another, Respondents,(2009) 6 SCC 121, Mr Agarwal submits that in such a case dependency deduction would be … of the annul income of the deceased. In Paragr aph 30 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held as follows :- 30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Candra, the general practice is to be apply standardized deduction. Having considered s everal subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the de ceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the d eceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of depending family member s is 2 to 3, one-fourth(1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members excee ds six. In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court, the dependency of the claim o ught to have been … of the annual income of the deceased i.e. Rs.12,000/-. Accor dingly, the calculation ought to have been made. It is further submitted by Mr A garwal that on such calculation, the amount of award would be Rs.6,12,000/- keep ing the other limbs of the award intact. 6. Mr A Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, Insurance company, however, has not disputed to the principles of law on dependency as e nunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma(Supra). He also refers t o paragraph 40 of the judgment and submits that in some other cases, multiplier scale used by the Apex court were ranged from 13 to 16. 7. Mr Agarwal, refuting the above contention of Mr Dutta has referred to pa ragraph 42 of the judgment which is quoted below :- 42. We therefore hold that the multiplier tobe used should b as mentio ned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilo k Chandra ad Charlie) ,which starts with an operative multiplier of 18( for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to25 years), reduced by one unit for every five ye ars, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31-35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 ye ars, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two u nits for every five years, that is , M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60ye ars, M-7 for 61 to 65 yeas and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. Mr Agarwal has not raised any other points. 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex court in Sarla Verma(Supra ), this appeal stands allowed by accepting the contention of Mr Agarwal that the learned tribunal ought to have considered the dependency of the claimants appel lants as Rs.12,000/- being … of the annual income of the deceased which was asse ssed at Rs.24,000/-. Accordingly, this appeal is modified to the extent as indic ated above. The matter is remanded back to the learned MAC Tribunal, Tinsukia fo r recalculation of the award. This should be done within a period of two weeks f rom the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Registry is dire cted to transmit the case records to the MAC Tribunal, Tinsukia forthwith. 9. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.