THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3306 of 2000 Date:19.11.2009 Between: Badisa Nagendram and others. ..Appellants. and K. Sambasiva Rao and another. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3306 of 2000 ORDER: This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. Since the issue involved is in a very short compass, all other details are not necessary to be mentioned except that the husband of the first claimant, father of claimant Nos.2 to 4 and son of claimant Nos.5 and 6, is the deceased. He was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing No.AAG 6253. While gong on the said lorry on 29.07.1995, an accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver resulting in death of the husband of the first claimant. The claimant petition was filed for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. The Tribunal answered issue No.1 regarding the cause of the accident due to rash and negligent driving, in favour of the claimants and on the basis of the evidence, assessed the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- and after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses and keeping in view his age as 33 years as shown in the charge sheet filed in the criminal Court against the driver, compensation was worked out to Rs.1,53,600/-. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the post mortem report – Ex.A-4 shows the age of the deceased as 30 years and as such adoption of his age as 33 years merely on the basis of the charge sheet is not justified. He also contends that the earnings of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.1,500/- per month rather than Rs.1,200/- per month and lastly, that his dependants being six persons, namely, wife, children and aged parents, deduction of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses was not justified. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company supports the award on the ground that the Tribunal has correctly construed the factual situations and has rightly applied the multiplier. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. The decision in Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] squarely applies to the facts of the present case and we can safely adopt aggregate multiplier list given thereunder. It is no doubt true that the age of the deceased as assessed in the post mortem report is more accurate and reliable than what the Police write in F.I.R. or charge sheet describing the age of the deceased. There is no prima facie basis for what the Police records in F.I.R. or charge sheet and therefore, the Tribunal committed error in going by the age mentioned in the charge sheet rather than the post mortem report. The age of the deceased, therefore, can be taken as 30 years. The monthly income of the deceased assessed at Rs.1,200/- by the Tribunal, however, appears to be reasonable and justified and needs no interference, especially, as there was no documentary evidence to support the claim as to the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month. Further, the deduction of 1/3rd, as dependents are six in number, also requires modification in view of the ratio at para 14 of the judgment in Sarala Verma (supra), and applying the multiplier as given in para 21 of the above decision, the award of the Tribunal requires and deserves modification as follows: The age of the deceased shall be taken as 30 years and the multiplier applicable will be ‘17’ as against ‘16’ adopted by the Tribunal. Similarly, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased shall be at 1/5th rather than 1/3rd as adopted by the Tribunal. The compensation, accordingly, shall stand worked out by applying the above criterion, which works out to Rs.1,95,840/- [960 X 12 =11,520 X 17 = 1,95,840]. To the rest of the extent, the award of the Tribunal does not deserve any modification. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% from the date of claim till the date of realization. No order as to costs. __________________________ (VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J) 19th November, 2009 GHN [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(3) Supreme Today 487