The age of the deceased is not a conclusive or paramount factor in the determination of compensation, except in cases where the remaining years of life expectancy are less than the multiplier sought to be applied.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether the age of the deceased is a conclusive or in any case a paramount consideration for the determination of compensation for his dependents under S.110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act has come to be the spinal issue in this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

2. On the 13th of Sept., 1966, at about 7.30 P.M. Harbans Lal deceased, an employee of the Amritsar Sugar and Oil Mills Ltd., Chheharta, was fatally run over by a military jeep whilst proceeding from Amritsar City towards Khalsa College. His widow and minor children preferred a claim petition alleging that the victim of the accident was killed because of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep. The claim was opposed by the Union of India but the Tribunal by its award dated the 15th of May, 1968, decided all the issues in favour of the claimants. It was held that the dependants have been deprived of financial support to the tune of Rs. 100/- per mensem and consequently the annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,200/-. At the time of the accident Harbans Lal deceased was of 45 years of age and assessing his life expectancy as 60 years the Tribunal allowed the loss for 15 years and awarded Rs. 18,000/- to the claimants.

3. The Union of India appealed against the above award. The learned single Judge, affirmed the findings of the Tribunal on merits. However, with regard to the amount of compensation he referred to the Full Bench judgement in Lachhman Singh V/s. Gurmit Kaur, AIR 1979 Punj and Har 50, for evolving a suitable multiplier and held as follows :-

"........ The person involved in the accident was an unskilled labourer aged 45 years. Keeping in view all these imponderable circumstances, I feel a multiplier of 10 would be suitable to arrive at the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents. Thus, the calculated amount of pecuniary loss is assessed at Rs. 12,000/-. Consequently, this appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above and the amount of damages awarded to the respondents is reduced from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. No costs."

4. Learned counsel for the appellants in assailing the aforesaid view had contended that the suitable and normal multiplier in the present case was 16 and there was no justification or exceptional circumstance for scaling down the multiplier to as low a level as that of 10. It was submitted that the normal life expectancy in this region has been authoritatively held to be 70 and the age of the deceased which was 45 years would be of little or no relevance for the assessment of compensation.

5. The vehement stand of the respondent-Union of India advocated by their learned counsel Mr. Mohinderjit Singh Sethi, however, was that the deceased being 45 years of age this was a conclusive or in any case the paramount consideration for fixing the multiplier and the learned single Judge was right in taking this factor into consideration for determining the same at a level of 10 only. It was forcefully contended by Mr. Sethi that a higher multiplier, if justifiable, could only arise in cases where the deceased was either in his teens or twenties. Counsel relied on Hoshiarpur National Transporters Pvt. Ltd. V/s. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, (1979) 81 Pun LR 618 to submit that in case of a deceased person of 40 years of age or above the multiplier could not go beyond 10. It is because of this firm stand that the meaningful question noticed at the very outset arises for consideration.

6. It appears to me that the aforesaid argument stems from some misapprehension of the true ratio in the authoritative decision of the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh s case (AIR 1979 Punj and Har 50) (supra). Undoubtedly a penumbral area does seem to exist with regard to the age of the deceased as a consideration for determining the multiplier to be applied. However, as the matter stands adjudicated upon by the binding decision of five Judges in Lachhman Singh s case, it is indeed wasteful and inapt to examine the