The court emphasized the application of established principles for calculating compensation in motor accident cases, particularly regarding deductions for personal expenses and the appropriate multiplier based on the deceased's age.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by claimants against award dated 8.8.2013 passed in MAC Petition No. 3-S/2 of 2012/10 titled Devku Devi and others vs. Jagdish Thakur and others, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla (in short ‘MACT’) for enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT.

2. MACT has determined amount of compensation Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of filing of claim petition till realization payable by Insurance Company.

3. Appeal was admitted on 28^th November, 2013. Thereafter, notices were issued to respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2 had received the notices, whereas respondent No.3 had refused to receive the notice sent through registered AD. Resultantly, respondents were proceeded ex-parte.

4. Claimants in present case, five in number, are dependent legal heirs of deceased Hira Singh who died in motor accident dated 19.08.2010 at the age of 61 years while travelling in Bus No. HP-63-0369 involved in the accident occurred at place Sanai Wear, Chhailla, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. At the time of accident, deceased Hira Singh was receiving pension at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per month.

5. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that pension of deceased has been rightly taken into consideration as Rs.11,000/- per month at the time of accident, however, the MACT has failed to take notice that in present case, there were five dependents of family, who had filed Claim Petition because MACT, though referred the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another,(2009) 6 SCC 121, but has failed to apply the principles propounded therein by the Supreme Court for deduction towards the personal expenses of deceased, applying multiplier and awarding funeral expenses and consortium in the said judgment passed by the Supreme Court which has been affirmed in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680and explained in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others,(2018) 18 SCC 130.

6. It has been submitted that compensation awarded in favour of claimants/appellants deserves to be enhanced in terms of above referred judgments in Sarla Verma’s, Pranay Sethi’s and Magma General Insurance Company Limited’s cases.

7. Relevant findings referred from in Sarla Verma’s case are as under:-

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in U.P. SRTC vs. Trilok Chandera, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. 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 member 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 exceeds six.

…….

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 to70 years.”

8. In Pranay Sethi’s case, paras 30 and 42 of Sarla Verma’s case have been considered and approved by the Five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

9. In Pranay Sethi’s case the verdict with respect to consortium and funeral expenses has been given as under:-

“59……

59.8 Reasonable figures on conve