In calculating compensation for loss of dependency under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appropriate multiplier should be determined based on the deceased's age and remaining service period. For a deceased aged 54 years with a remaining service period of 6 years, a multiplier of 6 is appropriate.

Soumitra Pal, Mir Dara Sheko, JJ.

By consent of Mr. K.K. Das, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned advocate for the respondents, the appeal is treated as on day's list and is taken up for hearing.

2. The appeal and the cross appeal relate to the judgment and order dated 12th December, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Tamluk in M.A.C. Case No. 05 of 2010 filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The fact is the deceased, an employee of the KTPP, was born on 2nd July, 1955. On 9th July, 2009 he met with an accident and expired. At the time of death he was 54 years of age and was having monthly income of Rs. 13,332/-. After deducting the professional tax, the income of the deceased was Rs. 11,700/- per month. The Tribunal computed the annual income at Rs. 1,40,400/-. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, which he would have spent had he been alive, it was computed at Rs. 83,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 10,29,600/- to which Rs. 2,500/- regarding loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses were added and the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs. 10,39,100/-.

4. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company on the ground that considering the age of the deceased the multiplier of 6 instead of 11 should have been applied. The cross objection has been preferred on the ground that in view of section 166 of the Act and in order to arrive at a just compensation, the Tribunal should have added 50% of the gross income and the future prospect of the deceased. Moreover, under section 171 of the Act the claimants are entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation.

5. Mr. K.K. Das, learned advocate for the appellant, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Padma and others : 2009 ACJ 1336 and on the judgments of this High Court in Smt. Rita Ghosh and others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another : 2010 (3) T.A.C. 21 (Cal), Smt. Namita Mishra alias Misra and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr. : 2012 (3) T.A.C. 77 (Cal), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sajeda Begum and others : 2010 (2) T.A.C. 840(Cal), Smt. Sankari Banik and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr: 2009 (4) T.A.C. 446 (Cal) and on an unreported decision delivered on 24th February, 2012 in F.M.A. 327 of 2010 (Smt. Rekha Chakraborty & anr. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another. and in F.M.A. 87 of 2011 with CAN 10806 of 2010 (the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Niyoti Rooj and others) delivered on 25th April, 2012, has submitted that as in all cases the deceased were in service and were above 50 years of age, the multiplier was taken keeping in mind the remaining period of service. Since in the case in hand the deceased was 54 years of age and would have retired on attaining the age of 60, the proper multiplier should be 6.

6. Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned advocate for the respondent, relying on the judgment in Smt. Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another : 2009(2) TAC 677 SC, Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar and others v. National Insurance Company and others : 2014 (3) T.A.C. 705 SC and the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in Smt. Phulmaya Tamang and another v. the General Insurance Co. Ltd. : (2015) WBLR (Cal) 674 submits that as the Tribunal had correctly applied the multiplier of 11, the judgment and award may not be interfered with.

7. Admittedly the deceased was 54 years of age and was drawing a salary of Rs. 11,700/-. He would have superannuated on attaining the age of 60. The question is what should be the multiplier. There is no dispute that while deciding an issue facts are of much relevance. We find that the judgment in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (supra) deals with facts with regard to