IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.380 of 2001 CHAIRMAN (NOW ADMINISTRATOR), B.R.T.C., PATNA Versus GAYATRI DEVI & ORS ----------- 15. 27.4.2009 Heard counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents. The only submission of the counsel for the appellant as with regard to determination of compensation by the Tribunal is confined to applicability of multiplier. He would submit that the multiplier ‘18’ applied would not be applicable because the death had taken place in the year 1987 and at that point of time the maximum multiplier under the Fatal Accident Act was ‘16’. He would further submit that the multiplier of ‘18’ for the age group of 21 to 25 came in the year 1994. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute this position in law and he also agrees to accept the multiplier of ‘10’ as was applied in similar cases. In this context he refers to the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2002(1) PLJR 494. In view of agreement between the 2 Surendra/ parties that the multiplier ‘10’ will be applied for the death of Nande Dom, this Court would hold that the monthly salary of Rs. 825/- multiplied by 12 being Rs. 9900/- with a multiplier of 10 would make his income of Rs. 99,000/- and after giving discount of 1/3rd for the expenses to be borne by the victim for his maintenance, the balance amount of gross income would be left to the amount of Rs. 66000/-. This amount the claimants would be entitled to receive on account of death of Nande Dom which would be Rs. 66000+ 2000+5000, i.e.total 73,000/-. Since the amount of Rs. 30,000/- has already been paid the balance payment of Rs. 43,000/- for the death of Nande Dom has to be made by the appellant B.S.R.T.C. within 30 days alongwith an interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Let it be made clear that this Court has not disturbed any other finding including the finding on the amount of compensation due to the death of Ravi Kumar, a minor aged about 3 years. With the aforementioned modification, this appeal is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 3