In compensation claims, established principles dictate that the multiplier for individuals over 50 years old should not include future prospects, and interest is not applicable on such prospects.

JUDGEMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

Heard learned counsel Mr. P. Hazarika for the Insurance Company/appellant and learned counsel Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury for the respondents No. 1 to 4.

2. Respondents No. 1. Ms. Sufiya Khatun, 2. Sri Shahil Akhtar, 3. Ms. Salma Parveen and 4. Sri Shahanur Islam, were the claimants in the MAC Case No. 380/2013.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant laid stress in his argument that the Insurance Company is basically aggrieved by the quantum awarded vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2016 in connection with MAC Case No. 380/2013. It is submitted that a wrong multiplier was taken up while calculating the loss of dependency. The deceased was more than 55 (Fifty Five) years and the multiplier ought to have been 9 instead of 11.

4. The date of birth of the deceased was 01.04.1955 and he was 55 years 3 months 27 days of age when he passed away as a result of the accident. To substantiate his grievance, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others-Versus- Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein it has been held that :-

"42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

5. The other ground of contention is that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not genuine.

6. It is submitted that the evidence of DW-2, Sri Vivekananda Dev Goswami, who was serving as a Junior Assistant at the office of the DTO, Nalbari, reveals that he has produced the relevant register book. He has proved Exhibit-A1 as the M.V.I. report, issued by the office of the DTO, Nalbari and he has proved Exhibit-A1 (1) as the signature of the M.V.I., Nalbari, Sri Rajendra Kr. Dutta, as he is acquainted with the signature as both are co-workers. He has further deposed that as per the register of license, the number mentioned as 363/NB/04 is not to be found in the register in the year 2004 and thus, no driving license bearing No. 363/NB/04 was issued in the year 2004.

7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this proves that the driving license was not a genuine license and not the Insurer, but the owner is responsible and liable to pay the compensation as a result of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the Tribunal has overlooked the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) wherein it has been laid down that there should be no addition as future prospects of income when the age of deceased is 50 (Fifty) years.

8. In Rajesh-versus-Rajbir Singh & others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the Supreme Court has held that the said principle in Sarla Verma's case has been laid in the case of salaried person and having regard to the fact that in the case of those self- employed or fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% when the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable and there shall normally be no addition