IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.: 447 of 2004 Date of decision : 19.11.2009 Ram Singh (dead) through LRs. …Appellants Versus Gian Chand and another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. R.R.Rahi, Advocate. For the respondent No. 2: Mr. G.D.Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation. The claimants were the father, sister and two brothers of the deceased Kaushalya Devi, who was aged about 23 years. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as dairy farmer and vegetable grower and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per year and deducted 1/3 for personal expenses. He assessed the dependency of the family at Rs.10,000/- per year and applied a multiplier of 17 and granted compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- plus Rs.3000/- for funeral expenses, i.e. 1,73,000/- in all. It has been urged by Shri R.R.Rahi, learned counsel for the appellants that the income taken by the learned Tribunal is 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 extremely low. Without going to the matter in detail, I find that even if the income was assessed much higher the amount of compensation granted is more than reasonable and calls for no enhancement. The Apex Court in case Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 held as follows:- “31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning or married, or be dependent on the father.” In the present case there is no proof that the siblings were dependent on the deceased. Even the father could not be really said to be dependant on the deceased. The claimants are the parents and siblings of a young girl aged about 23 years. Admittedly, she was not in any organized employment. There is no cogent proof of the income of the deceased and the learned Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.15,000/- per year. At best the loss to the estate could have been taken to be 50% of the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal also erred in applying the multiplier of 17. It has been held by the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation 3 vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176 and UPState Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra, 1996(4) SCC 362 that while choosing the multiplier the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is higher has to be taken into consideration. In this case, the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation by fixing the multiplier by taking into consideration only the age of the deceased and not the age of the claimant, who admittedly was 64 years of age and has infact died during the pendency of the appeal. In case his age has been taken into consideration the multiplier would have been only 7. The compensation already awarded is on the higher side and calls for no enhancement. The appeal is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. 19th November, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.