Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and awarded dated 21.2.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1 Udaipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.1036/2010 whereby whilst accepting the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants for the death of their son Babu in a road accident, they were awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,36,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim application.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that the compensation awarded is highly excessive and thus, should be reduced. He submitted that the deceased was a bachelor and thus, the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier based on the age of the deceased whereas, it should have been applied in context to the age of the dependents. He further submitted that the Tribunal committed a gross error in adding 50% in the income of the deceased by way of future prospects. The view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reshama Kumari and ors. vs. Madan Mohan and anr. reported in (2013) 5 SCALE 160. He thus prayed that the compensation awarded be reduced suitable under the above two heads.

4. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the impugned judgment.

5. The first contention which was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the multiplier to be applied in assessing the quan-tum of claim filed on account of death of a bachelor. In the opinion of this Court, the multiplier applied by the tribunal in context to the age of the decea-sed, is absolutely just and proper. The issue regarding applicability of the multiplier in the cases of death of a bachelor is no longer in controversy in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (1) Amrit Bhanu vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2012 (ACTC) (SC) 1046= 2012(3) RLW 2748 (SC) and (2) Reshama Kumari (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshama Kumari (supra) relying on some of its earlier decisions, observed in paras No.37 to 40 of the judgment, as below:

"37. As regards deduction for personal and living expenses, in Sarla Verma17, this Court considered Susamma Thomas1, Trilok Chandra3 and Fakeerappa[23] and finally in paras 30, 31 and 32 of the Report held as under:

"30. .......... Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that the bachelor would tend to spend more or himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus, even

Click Here to Read the rest of this document