+ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date ofJudgment: 1 1.7.2011 MAC APPEAL No. 887120L0 SMT.MILLAN KUMARI & ANR.. ...........Appellants Through: Mr.O.P.Maini, Advocate. Verstrs SMT. NIRMALA DEVI & ANR. ..........Respondent Through: Mr.Kanwal Choudhary, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1-. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR. I. (Oral) 1. The awarded amount is Rs.3,35,000/- along with interest awarded @ 7 .5% per annum. The claimants were the parents; out of the awarded amount the mother was awarded Rs.3.10.000/- and balance of Rs.25,000/- fell to the share of petitioner no.2 i.e the father. The victim was 19 years of age; he was the son of the claimants. Contention was IvIAC APPEAL No.BB7l2010 I'age l of 3 :{, t 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 j1 that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. This petition had been filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the M.V.Act). Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that as per the second Schedule of Section 163,4. of Act even in the case of a bachelor 1/3'd amount should have been deducted from his gross earnings; further as per the Schedule the multiplier of 16 should have been adopted and not the multiplier of 15 keeping in vier'.'the fact that the petitioner no.2 i.e. the mother of the deceased was 36 years of age. It is pointed out that both these facts are.apparent from the reading of the Second Schedule. 2. There is in fact no dispute to this proposition and this is evident from the Second Schedule which deals with "Compensation for third party fatal accident/injury cases." Under Section 163,4. of the M.V.Act the multiplier has to be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased or the age of the claimant whichever is higher. Petitioner no.2 i.e the mother of the deceased was aged about 36 years on the date of the accident. As per the Second Schedule the multiplier of 16 should have been'adopted and not 15. The note appended at the end of the Second Schedule also states that the amount of compensation a'uvarded in the MAC APPEAL No.887/2010 Page 2 of3 \ { claim under Section 1634 of the M.v.Act shall be reduced by l/3'd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Both these contention of the learned counsel for the appellant are accordingly upheld. 3. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.40,000 /- per annum; deducting l/3'd ofthe said amount i.e. the Rs.13,333/- from the said amount, the amouni works out to Rs.26,667/- which has to be multiplied by the multiplier of 16; compensation payable would thus be Rs.4,26,672/- in the head of loss of dependency. A sum of Rs.35,000/_ has been awarded as non pecuniary damages which amount calls for no interference. The awarded amount is accordingly moclified to read as Rs.4,61,672/-. Interest has been awarded at 7.5%o. The Award in no other manner calls for any interference. 4. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. IIIIr I INDERMEET KAUR, J. JULY tl,zqtl nandan MAC APPEAL No.887/2010 Page 3 of3 \