JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. K Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. I Das, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal is filed assailing the judgment and award dated 15.02.2018 passed in MAC case No. 169/2016 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 27.11.2015 at about 8:00 p.m. a motor cycle bearing registration No. As-14/D-2127 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased at Hotapara Chowk. The deceased was shifted to Rahman Hospital, Sixmile, Guwahati, immediately but on the following day i.e. on 28.11.2015 he succumbed to his injuries at the said hospital.

4. The Insurance Company i.e. United India Company Limited filed it written statement and denied its liability for payment of compensation by taking all usual pleas of defence. The claimant examined two witnesses and also exhibited certain documents including the post-mortem report and the accident information report and charge-sheet. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal passed the following award.

5. The basic grievance of the appellant in the present case is that in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the ratio laid in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in Royal Sundaram A iance Insurance Company Ltd vs Mandala Yadagari Goud and Ors reported in AIR 2019 SC 1825, the multiplier ought to have been determined on the basis of the age of the deceased, the deceased being a bachelor and the claimant being his mother, however, the learned Tribunal has determined the multiplier to be 9 taking the age of the claimant/ mother.

6. By now it is well settled that the age of the deceased must be the basis for determining the multiplier even in case of a bachelor. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma (supra) determined and fixed the applicable multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased. It was further held that multiplier should correspond to the age of the deceased. Such view was reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and affirmed that the age of the deceased required to be the basis for determining the multiplier. Subsequent to this the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) further held that even in the case of a bachelor the principle enunciated in the case of Sarala Verma (supra) and affirmed in Pranay Sethi (supra) is applicable.

7. Therefore, in the aforesaid backdrop this court could not but held that learned tribunal below has committed serious error in applying the multiplier as 9 on the basis of age of the claimant/ mother. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this court, the present appeal deserved to be allowed by fixing the multiplier to be 17 corresponding to the age of the deceased which