IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.301 of 2006 BRANCH MANAGER ,NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Darbhanga Branch, Marwari School Road, Post Office & Police Station – Darbhanga, District – Darbhanga (Insurer of Tata Maxi 407 No. BEM-9066). ----------------(Opposite party no.2) ----- Appellant. Versus 1. GALO DEVI, wife of Sri Jawahar Lal Deo; 2. Jawahar Lal Deo, son of Late Bahur Lal Deo; Both are residents of village – Pohaddi Bela, Police Station – Ghanshyampur, District – Darbhanga. ------------- (Claimants) ------------- Respondents 1st Set. ------- 15. 07.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal involves a very limited questions regarding selection of multiplier deciding quantum of claim as against death of deceased son of the claimant who are respondents 1 and 2 here. The claim tribunal has on the basis of age of the deceased being 12 years use the multiplier 15 as against this, according to learned counsel for the appellant, it could have been 11 instead of 15 as the respective age of the parents of the deceased (claimant) could have been considered, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others reported in 1994(2) SCC 176. It is further submitted that at the time of deposition, the claimants have given their respective age and it could have been also considered as safety measures. On the other hand, - 2 - as per learned counsel for the respondent first set neither the age of the claimants, as stood in their respective depositions are mentioned in memo of appeal, nor even copy of the same has been produced to show their age. On the other hand, there are photo identity card of the claimants showing their respective age at the time of accident in the year 2001, 36 to 37 years and if this much is considered the correct multiplier should have been 16 instead of 15. The Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others reported in 1994(2) SCC 176; has held in para 13 of the judgment as follows: “13. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should - 3 - also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.” It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that in computation of compensation while applying multiplier method age of the parents (claimants) and the deceased should have been taken into consideration and whichever is higher is to be given respect. He further submits that photo identity card which is said to have been available with learned counsel for the respondent was not produced before the claim tribunal so it could not be considered here also. It is undisputed that in the memo of appeal there is nothing mentioned about the age of the claimants i.e. respondents 1 and 2 as stood in their depositions which forms foundation of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant nor with the memo of appeal in any way copy of their depositions just to show their age have been annexed. In fact there is nothing to support the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants at this stage, the appeal has already travelled for four years. I do not find any reason to get it further delayed enabling the learned counsel for the appellant to bring the materials whereupon he has based his claims. Moreover, claim cases by victims for compensation are based on beneficiary legislation and it is also to be kept in mind that even at the rate of asserted multiplier (11) the appellant has not made any payment. Thus finding no merit in - 4 - this appeal, it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Appellant is directed to pay amount to award with interest as awarded at the earliest. Simultaneously, the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of this appeal be remitted to the court below through a draft in the names of the claimants towards their payment for compensation. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)