MAC .APP.320/2007 Page 1 of 4 16 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP.320/2007 Date of Decision: 27th March, 2009 % NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Pradeep Gaur and Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Advs. versus SMT. GEETA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Jay Prakash, Adv. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. The appellant has challenged the impugned award of the learned Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs.13,46,000/- has been awarded to respondent Nos.1 to 7. The only ground of challenge is that the learned Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 12 instead of 16 for computing the compensation. 2. This appeal relates to the death of Hari Ram aged 37 years who died in the accident on 12th October, 2004. The deceased was survived by his widow, four minor children and parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. MAC .APP.320/2007 Page 2 of 4 3. The deceased was earning Rs.6,853/- per month at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal took the future prospects into consideration by taking the average of Rs.6,853/- and its double which comes to Rs.10,279/-. 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and the multiplier of 16 was applied to compute the loss of dependency at Rs13,15,776/-. Rs.25,000/- has been awarded for loss of love, affection and consortium and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. The total compensation computed by the learned Tribunal is Rs.13,45,776/- (rounded off to Rs.13,46,000/-). 4. The sole ground of challenge in this appeal is that the multiplier of 12 should be applied instead of 16 since the learned Tribunal has taken the future prospects into consideration. 5. The appellant was aged 37 years at the time of the accident and the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for the multiplier of 16. The deceased has left behind seven legal representatives including his widow, four minor children and parents who were dependent upon the deceased. The deceased was sole bread winner of the family. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses is not thumb rule. In Surinder Kaur vs. Inder Kapoor, II (2004) ACC 866, this Court has allowed the deduction of personal expenses of the deceased at 2/11 considering that the deceased left behind MAC .APP.320/2007 Page 3 of 4 his widow, three children and parents. The deceased has left behind seven legal representatives and, therefore, deduction of more than 1/6th of the salary of the deceased was not warranted. However, the learned Tribunal appears to have kept this factor in mind while applying the multiplier. As such, even if the contention of the appellant is accepted and lower multiplier is adopted after deduction of 1/6th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the total loss of dependency shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, considering from any point of view, the total amount of compensation appears to be just, fair and reasonable. 6. There is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. No costs. 7. The appellant has deposited 75% of the award amount along with proportionate interest with the learned Tribunal which has been released to respondent Nos.1 to 7 in terms of the interim order dated 23rd May, 2007 of this Court. The appellant shall deposit the remaining award amount along with proportionate interest with the learned Tribunal within 30 days. 8. Upon such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal shall release the same to respondent Nos.1 to 7 in terms of its award. 9. Upon satisfaction of the award, the appellant shall submit the proof of the same in this appeal, whereupon the MAC .APP.320/2007 Page 4 of 4 Registry shall release the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant. 10. Copy of this order be given ‘Dasti’ to learned counsel for both the parties under signatures of Court Master. J.R. MIDHA, J MARCH 27, 2009 mk