IMPORTANT POINT
Accident – Claim Petition – Legal Representative – Even if a son is major and earning he does stop looking to his father for financial help and does not lose the status of legal representative – Claim maintainable
Accident – Income – Merely because the deceased was 57 years of age and was to retire after three years, would not entitle reduction of the income assessed.

B.S. WALIA, J.

1. Appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants, widow, daughter and two sons of deceased Babu Singh, who died in a motor vehicular accident on 17.10.1998. Deceased was 57 years of age and was employed in the Central State Library, Patiala. His income was assessed at Rs.5592/- per month, however, for the purpose of award of compensation, the same was taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. After making deduction of 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of ‘7’, dependency was arrived at Rs.2,85,600/-. By adding Rs.14,600/- towards funeral expenses, total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded as compensation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised fivefold submissions to challenge the award to seek enhancement of the compensation awarded viz. that on account the deceased being 57 years of age multiplier of ‘9’ not ‘7’ was applicable. No amount was awarded on account of loss of consortium and loss of estate. Besides the amount awarded on account of funeral expenses was also slightly lesser than what is payable. Thirdly, deduction in case of 4 dependants was to be at the rate of 1/4th of the income of the deceased, whereas the same had been made at the rate of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased. Fourthly, although the income of the deceased had been assessed at Rs. 5592/- per month yet for working out compensation payable, the same had been taken at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Lastly, no amount had been awarded towards future prospects.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that appellant Nos.2 to 4 i.e. daughter and sons of the deceased were not entitled to compensation, as they were major, married and were working. He has further urged that the interest awarded at the rate of 10% per annum is on the higher side. No other point has been urged by either of the parties.

4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that the claim petition is liable to be accepted for the reasons as are mentioned hereinunder.

5. Admittedly, the deceased was 57 years of age and was working on a permanent job in the Central State Library, Patiala against salary of Rs. 5592/- per month i.e. income which was assessed by the Tribunal. Multiplier of ‘7’ was applied, whereas as per paragraph No.42 of the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121, where the age of deceased is 57 years, multiplier of ‘9’ is to be applied. Relevant extract of Sarla Verma’s case (supra) is reproduced as under:-

“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 to 70 years.”

Accordingly, it is held that multiplier of ‘9’ would be applicable and not ‘7’.

6. Secondly, the deceased left behind four dependants. In terms of paragraph No.30 of Sarla Verma’s case (supra), deduction was to be made at the rate of 1/4th of the income of the deceased and not at the rate of 1/3rd as held by the Tribunal. Relevant extract of Sarla Verma’s case (supra) is reproduced 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 Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this(2003) 3 SLR (R) 60