In cases of claim lodged by a parent for the accidental death of offspring, it is the age of the claimant which should be considered for the purpose of deciding the appropriate multiplier for loss of dependency.

1. Heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 6. Since the case has been fixed for admission hearing today, no one has put appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 and 8.

2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has arisen out of a judgment and award dated 08.05.2015 passed by the learned Member, MACT No.2, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC Case No.2310/2012. That MAC case arose out of an accident occurred on 19.07.2012 resulting in death of one Akhtar Ali alias Akhtar Hussain. He was a handyman in vehicle No.AS01-Y-9694. Because of the accident Akhtar Ali died. He was a bachelor and accordingly claim petition was lodged by his parents and the dependent brothers and sisters. The learned Tribunal after consideration of the materials brought on record by the parties was satisfied that the death of the deceased was due to motor vehicle accident which took place on 19.07.2012 leading to registration of Kohora O.P. GD Entry No.317 under Bokakhat P.S. Case No.101/12 under Sections 279/304(A) of IPC.

3. The monthly salary of the deceased was found to be Rs.5000/- and thereupon the loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.8,10,000/- on the basis of the age of the deceased. As pointed out above, the deceased was unmarried and so the age of the dependent claimants ought to have been considered in making choice of multiplier. The brothers and sisters are supported by their parents. So age of these claimants are not required to be taken into consideration and it is the age of the mother which the learned Tribunal ought to have considered for the purpose of deciding the multiplier but without doing so the age of the deceased was taken into consideration. The deceased died at the age of 21 years and the learned Tribunal took up 18 as the multiplier. Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments the age of the mother ought to have been taken up for the purpose of multiplier. It has been brought on record that mother was aged about 43 years as per claim petition and so the real multiplier ought to have been 14 in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Even the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were considered by this Court in MAC Appeal No.269/2014 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rasapati Pegu & 3 others) wherein an identical situation had arisen. Paragraph 5 of the earlier judgment of this Court is quoted below for ready reference :-

“[5] It is no longer res integra in a case where claim is lodged by a parent for unfortunate accidental death of offspring, it is not the age of the deceased but the age of the claimant which should be considered for the purpose of deciding the appropriate multiplier. In the case in hand claimant No.1 is none other than the mother of the deceased. Claimants No.2 & 3 are minor sisters but they have their parents surviving and so the learned tribunal committed error by not considering the age of the claimant No.1 for the purpose of deciding multiplier. It appears from records that the claimant No.1 was 45 years of age as on the date of accident and so the appropriate multiplier, as per the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma, should be 14. The loss of dependency, therefore, needs to be recalculated. Since the learned tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-, the same finding of the fact is not interfered with. The loss of dependency, therefore, will be calculated as below: