1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act by original respondent no.1 assailing judgment and award dated 28.03.1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in M.A.C.P.No.44/1988 whereby the applicant nos. 1 to 7respondents herein were granted compensation of Rs.2,73,000/-on account of death of Satish Ramteke in motor vehicular accident occurred on 17.02.1988 in Lalpeth Colliery, Chandrapur.

2. The learned tribunal, after considering the income and age of the deceased, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.14,400/-per annum and by adopting multiplier of 20 arrived at figure of Rs.2,88,000/-and directed the respondents to pay the said amount inclusive of no fault liability of Rs.15,000/-.

3. Mr. Khanzode, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant. According to him, by choosing wrong multiplier of 20, irrespective of age of the claimants, the learned tribunal has fallen in error in granting total compensation of Rs.2,88,000/.

4. Mr. K. R. Lambat, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 7, supported the judgment and award passed by the tribunal. According to him, this is a case of death of a young person aged about 26 years, who had left behind him parents, minor brothers and sisters. In that view of the matter, no interference with the judgment and award impugned is warranted, he urged.

5. The controversy involved in this appeal is about ascertaining suitable multiplicand and choosing of proper multiplier.

6. Evidence was led to the effect that the deceased was working as Electrical Foreman in the office of Project Officer, Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast, Chandrapur on monthly salary of Rs.1673.82/-. He was holding Diploma in Electrical which he had obtained from Government Polytechnic, Yavatmal. DW1-Sukhdeo Mahato, Dy. Personnel Manager deposed about the salary drawn by the deceased. He also divulged the date of birth of the deceased.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned tribunal arrived at the figure of loss of dependency at Rs.14,400/-. It has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased being unmarried, half of his income should have been deducted while arriving at the figure of loss of dependency. In Sarla Verma (Smt.) & others..vs..Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“But 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.....”

8. Unfortunately the evidence of PW3 Parvati-mother of the deceased, is insufficient to deviate from the normal rule of deducting 50% of the income while fixing the loss of dependency. The deceased had already attained marriageable age. Applicant nos. 3 and 4, who are sister and brother, were already on the verge of attaining majority. Ramdas, who is claimant no.2, did not enter the witness box to explain about his income and the nature or type of work he is doing etc. In that view of the matter, it appears that the approach of the learned tribunal in deducting 1/3rd income towards personal expenses of the deceased was wrong and contrary to the evidence on record.

9. The next controversy is regarding choice of multiplier. The learned tribunal, while choosing the multiplier of 20 relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Krishan Lal thr. LRs. & ors...vs.. Shri Mohd. Din and ors.; AIR 1994 Delhi 10. Reliance was also placed on Concord of India Insurance Company Ltd. ..vs.. Nirmala Devi; AIR 1979 SC 1666 and Hardeo Kaur ..vs.. Rajasthan State Road T