IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO.No. 73 of 2007. Date of Decision: December 23,2011. _______________________________________________ Oriental Insurance Company, Mythe Estate, Kaithu Shimla-3; through its Senior Divisional Manager. . ….Appellant. Versus. 1.Smt.Nisha d/o late Smt.Sita Devi. 2.Km. Pooja Thakur, d/o late Smt.Sita Devi. 3.Mandeep Thakur son of late Smt.Sita Devi through his elder sister cum next friend-cum-guardian Smt.Nisha, daughter of late Smt.Sita Devi all residents of village Banoh, P.O. Kumarhatti, Tehsil Arki District Solan, H.P. 4. Sh.Anil Kumar son of Sh.Shiv Ram Pal, son of Sh.Budhi Ram, resident of Banoh, P.O.Kumarhatti, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. 5.Sh.Mast Ram son of Sh.Dhani Ram, resident of village Dhar Banta Baterh, P.O.Bhumti, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, C/o Sh. Anil Kumar son of Sh.Shiv Ram Pal, resident of Banoh, P.O.Kumarhatti, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. . ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the appellant: :Mr.Lalit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 3. :Mr.Adarsh K.Vashist, Advocate. For Respondent-5 :Mr.Virender Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent-4 :Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 Dev Darshan Sud,J (Oral). This is Insurance Company’s appeal against the award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 7,67,000/- to the claimants, who are daughters and sons of the deceased. The awarded amount was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award till its deposit. While apportioning the compensation, Smt. Nisha awarded Rs.2,00,000/-, Km. Pooja Rs. 2,00,000/- and Sh. Mandeep Rs.3,64,000/-. 2. The award is challenged by the Insurance Company basically on the question of quantum as application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) filed by the appellant was allowed on 30th December, 2006. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that the learned Tribunal was in grave error in adopting multiplier of 10. It is undisputed before me that the age of the deceased Smt. Sita Devi, who was working as a Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Solan, on the date of death was 45 years. In Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, the court holds that in such situation the multiplier to be adopted is 14. This submission therefore requires to be rejected. However, it will have a bearing on the question of quantification. 4. The other point urged by the learned counsel is that the Tribunal was wrong in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,657/- and thereafter adding to it notional increments. Learned counsel submits that Ext.PW3/B which is a salary slip of the deceased shows that net pay was Rs.5,992/- after deduction of Rs. 1,664/- had 3 been made on account of Provident Fund etc. He submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the increments would have been granted as assumed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Adverting to this issue, the matter is no longer res integra . In Srla Verma’s case (supra), the Supreme Court holds: 24.. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self- employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. (P.134). 6. In this view of the matter, I hold that the income of the deceased would be assessed at Rs.5,992/- or say Rs.6,000/- per month and adding 30% towards future income, it would comes to Rs.7,800/- which would be the dependency amount. Deducting 1/3rd from this datum figure, the annual dependency would work out to be 4 Rs.5,200/- per month. To this extent the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is justified. 7. However considered in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that wrong multiplier having been applied, the petitioner would be entitled to Rs.5,200/-. A multiplier of 14 is directed to be applied and the award is modified accordingly. The total award amount would, thus, work out to Rs.8,73,600/-. 8. Since the award made by the Tribunal is Rs. 7,67,000/-, I do not consider appropriate to interfere in the amount awarded. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. December 23, 2011(R)