IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.298 of 2011 Date of decision : October 12, 2011 The New India Assurance Company …Petitioner. Versus Shanti Devi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, for quashing award dated 3rd June, 2011 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, alleging that the said award is perverse and since the Insurance Company-petitioner does not have the right to appeal, because the perversity pertains only to the quantum of compensation, only remedy available to the petitioner is by way of present petition. 2. A man by the name of Anant Ram, aged 55 years, serving in a Government office and drawing salary of `17,837/- died in a vehicular accident. His widow and two major children applied for award of compensation, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Tribunal, while making deduction, on account of deceased’s own expenses, had he not died in the accident, made a cut at the rate of 25 per cent. According to the petitioner, the cut should not have been less than 1/3rd of the income, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Devi (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is also the case of the petitioner that since the deceased was to superannuate, within three years of his death, multiplier of 11 years’ purchase should not have been applied. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. It is true that the learned Tribunal has misread the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Devi’s case (supra), while observing that where a deceased leaves behind 2-3 persons, his income should be reduced by 25 per cent, at the time of working out the datum figure, for calculating the compensation payable, because as per para-30 of the said judgment, where the deceased leaves 2-3 dependents, deduction, on account of own expenses of the deceased, has to be 1/3rd, this is not the only precedent. There is another method of arriving at the datum figure. It is known as unit method. Such a method was adopted by a Larger Bench of the Hon’ble …3… Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others versus Trilok Chandra and others, (1996) 4 SCC 362, to which reference is there in Sarla Devi’s case (supra) also. According to Unit method, income is divided among all the members of the family, in equal shares, when they all are adult. In this case there were four members of the deceased’s family, including the deceased himself. One part of the income, out of four, is required to be deducted from the total income, on account of the expenses of the deceased and the rest of the income is to be taken as loss of dependency. So, the quantum of compensation worked out by making 25 per cent cut cannot be said to be perverse. 5. As regards the submission that the deceased would have retired three years later, had he not died in the accident, and as such multiplier of 11 years’ purchase should not have been adopted, suffice it to say that after retirement the deceased could not have sat idle. He would have done some other job or work for gain. It is not in dispute that normally in the case of 55 years old man 11 years’ purchase multiplier is adopted. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. October 12, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J