The correct application of the multiplier method in compensation calculations is crucial, particularly regarding the deceased's age and tax considerations.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - At risk and cost of learned counsel for the appellants, service of notice upon respondent No. 2 (owner) is dispensed with.

2. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and disposed of finally.

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the Judgment and Award dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sumperpur, Dist. Pali, in MACT Claim Case No. 92/2016 whereby, the appellants-claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 20,74,750/- on account of the death of Bhanwar Singh in the accident which occurred on 02.07.2016.

4. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the appellants-claimants.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the finding of Tribunal on Issue No. 2 is erroneous on the ground that despite there being four documents on record viz. Ex.P-6 Inspection Report of dead body, Ex.P-7 Panchnama of dead body, Ex.P-8 Memo of delivery of dead body and Ex.P-18 Post-Mortem Report showing the age of the deceased to be 40 years, however, despite, the availability of the supporting documents, the Tribunal committed an error while taking into consideration the age of the deceased between 40 to 45. Learned counsel further submits that it was conclusively proved before the Tribunal that the age of the deceased was 40 years.

7. It is further submitted that the Tribunal while taking into consideration the age of the deceased to be 40 years the multiplier of 15 as per the judgment of Hon?ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 12, should have been applied whereas, the Tribunal while computing the award had taken the multiplier of 14 in the present case. He further submits that the deduction of 10% towards the income tax from the income of the deceased is also incorrect as the annual income of the deceased was shown as Rs. 2,16,000/- p.a. and therefore, as per the rules prevailing in the year 2016, the income of the deceased was not taxable and therefore, the Tribunal committed an error while deducting an amount of 10% towards the income tax. He further submits that the amount of award in the present case may be suitably enhanced.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent ? Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record and after the examination of the same, Issue No. 2 was decided. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is ?Just Compensation? and therefore, does not require any interference by this Court.

9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the Judgment dated 28.06.2019 as well as the other relevant record of the case.

10. The documentary evidence brought on record in the shape of Exp-6,7,8 and 18 shows that the age of the deceased was 40 years and therefore, the Tribunal committed an error while taking into consideration the multiplier in the present case.

11. The Tribunal committed an error while considering the age of the deceased between 40 to 45 years and applied the multiplier of

12. The multiplier of 15 should have been applied for computation of the award in view of the judgment of Hon?ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 12.

13. The deduction of the amount to the extent of 10% towards the income tax is also incorrect. As in the year of 2016 the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 2,16,000/- p.a. which was not taxable and therefore, no amount towards the income tax was required to be deducted therefore, the annual income for computation of the award is taken as 2,16,000/-.

Both the learned counsels for the parties have jointly submitted the calculation for re-computation of the award in the present case which is taken