Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

1. What would be the loss caused to the family of a victim in a fatal accident on account of his/her death? The answer to this question lies in the oft quoted opinion of Lord Wright in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., [1942 AC 601]. At page 617, Lord Wright has stated the legal position as follows: "It is a hard matter of pounds, shillings and pence, subject to the element of reasonable future probabilities. The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend upon the regularity of his employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required or expended for his own personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned into a lump sum by taking a certain number of years' purchase. That sum, however, has to be taxed down by having due regard to uncertainties, for instance, that the widow might have again married and thus ceased to be dependent, and other like matters of speculation and doubt."

2. This principle has been reiterated by Viscount Simon in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd., [1951 AC 601]. The said principle of assessment of compensation was approved by the Apex Court for application in Courts in India in Gobald Motor Services Ltd. And another v. R.M.K. Veluswami and others [AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1] and in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti and others [AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1750].

3. The aforesaid principle requires to be re-stated in this review petition filed by the appellants.

4. The review petitioners, who are the aged mother and minor siblings of a 22 year old unmarried autorickshaw driver by name Shameem, who met with his death on 17.08.2002 in a motor occurrence approached the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation against which, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,76,500/- together with interest @ 7% per annum attributing negligence against the first respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle. The third respondent insurance company, who admitted the policy, was saddled with the liability to pay the compensation.

5. In the appeal filed by the review petitioners challenging the adequacy of compensation, this Court awarded a sum of Rs.56,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum as compensation, over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Though the review petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, the learned Tribunal came to the finding that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month and deducted one-third therefrom towards personal expenses of the deceased. Considering the age of the mother of the deceased, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier 16 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- towards loss of dependency.

7. In the appeal, considering the age of the deceased and also taking into account his avocation, this Court fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/. As the deceased was unmarried, following the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], one-half of the income was deducted in consideration of the expenses which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive. As the claimants are the aged mother and minor siblings, this Court adopted the multiplier applicable to the age of the mother fixed as per Sarla Verma's case (cited supra) which is 15. Thus, the loss of dependency was re-calculated and an additional sum of Rs.14,000/- was awarded under that head.

8. In this review petition, the petitioners would allege that this Court has gone wrong in deducting one-half of the monthly income towards the personal expenses of the deceased and also in adopting the multiplier applicable to the age of the mother of the deceased instead of adopting the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased.

9. We heard the learned