Basant, J.

1. Is the age of the dependent claimant irrelevant in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act? Does the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 (6) SCC 121) followed by P.S. Somanathan v. District Insurance Officer (2011 (3) SCC 566) dispense with the requirement under settled law that the lower multiplier has to be taken into reckoning when different multipliers exist considering the age of the victim/deceased and dependent/claimant in a fatal accident? How are Tribunals to identify the multiplier in such cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act hereinafter) in future? These questions are raised before us in this appeal by Sri. K.B. Arunkumar, the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. To the vitally relevant facts first. The appellant/claimant is a woman, aged 61 years. She claimed compensation for the loss suffered by her on account of the death of her son Jayan @ Jayesh Kumar in a motor accident which took place on 11.06.2008. She preferred to stake the claim under Section 166 of the Act. A total amount of Rs.7 lakhs was claimed. She had staked the claim along with claimants 2 and 3, children of the appellant and siblings of the deceased.

3. The Tribunal by the impugned award came to the conclusion that only the appellant/mother is entitled to compensation. It was further held that only an amount of Rs.1,53,000/- is payable as compensation as per the details given in para.9, which we extract below: Sl.No. Heads of award Amount awarded 1 Transportation expenses Rs.2,000.00 2 Compensation for mental shock and agony Rs.5,000.00 3 Loss of dependency Rs.1,26,000.00 (3000 x 12 x 7 x ½) 4 Loss of love and affection Rs.15,000.00 5 Funeral expenses Rs.5,000.00 Total Rs.1,53,000.00

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant/mother claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. The other claimants have accepted the award and have not preferred any appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on the following grounds.

i) The Tribunal erred grossly in taking into consideration the multiplier applicable to the appellant and not the multiplier applicable to the deceased.

ii) At any rate, the quantum of compensation could not have been below the amount payable under Section 163A of the Act. Ground No.(i)

5. Detailed arguments have been advanced on this aspect. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Arunkumar contends that whatever may have been the law earlier, after the decision in Sarla Verma (supra), loss of dependency in a case of death is to be ascertained by taking into reckoning the multiplier relevant to the deceased. It is his contention that the multiplier relevant to the claimant is not in any way relevant in the computation of compensation for loss of dependency after the dictum in Sarla Verma (supra). The learned counsel takes us to the decision in Sarla Verma (supra) in detail to contend that there has been a change of law after. Sarla Verma (supra) and now even in a case under Section 166 of the Act, the multiplier has to be ascertained in a case of death by taking into consideration the age of the deceased only. The multiplier applicable to the claimant is no more relevant, contends the counsel.

6. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant takes us through the decision in Sarla Verma (supra) in complete detail. The learned counsel wants us to consider specifically the observations in paragraphs 18 and 19 of Sarla Verma (supra). We extract the same below:

“18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death.

(a) age of the deceased;

(b) income of the deceased; and the

(c) the number of dependents.

The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:

(i) additions/deductions to