1) Heard. Admit. Heard finally. In this group of appeals, respective appellants, i.e. either the claimants or the insurance companies have questioned legality of multiplier fixed by the respective Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, under the Motor Vehicles Act.

2) Facts in each of the appeals are at variance to a larger extent, but, since common question of law, referred to above, is involved, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

FIRST APPEAL NO.1611/2013(MACP NO.44/2009).

3) Smt. Syeda Aleemunbee, sought compensation for death of Syed Shabbir. An amount of Rs.6,21,500/with interest @ 9% was awarded on 22.09.2011. Same is challenged by the appellant/insurance company on the ground of quantum. The appellant/insurance company feels that age of parents of the deceased at the time of accident was in the age-group of 40-45 years. The trial court should have applied multiplier of 15 and it should have deducted half of the amount towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor, instead of 1/3rd. The income of the deceased should have been notionally treated at Rs. 3,000/- per month instead of holding the same to be Rs.4,500/-.

FIRST A