The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of multipliers and assessment of future loss of income and non pecuniary damages in fatal accident compensation cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri B.P. Verma, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the New India Insurance Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 07.08.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.02, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No. 172 of 2013 (Smt. Pista Devi and others Vs. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. and others.) awarding a sum of Rs.52,51,911/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7%.

3. The accident having taken place at the time of noon at about 1:45 P.M. on 04.03.2013 is not in dispute. The vehicle of the opposite party No. 2 Bansal Transport Company, Nayee Mandi, Bharatpur being involved in the accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal has attained finality as the opposite party No. 2, the owner of the offending vehicle, has chosen not to challenge the award of the Tribunal. Hence, the only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. The accident took place in the year 2013. The deceased was about 52 years of age and was working on the post of Charge-man (F) in the Marketing Division of Indian Oil Corporation, Mathura Refinery, Mathura and Rs.79,876/-per month was his salary. The learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.61500/-per month, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased as he was married person and in view of the prevailing judgements, granted multiplier of 9 taking into consideration the relevant factor of age of the deceased and his dependents. The Tribunal has granted Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, however Rs.15,000/- was claimed in the claim petition.

5. It is submitted by Shri Verma, learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income; the multiplier granted by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the decisions of the Apex Court. According to him, the multiplier of 11 ought to have been granted by the learned Tribunal as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC), but unfortunately in a very strange and casual manner, the learned tribunal has lost sight of this important aspect of the matter while passing the award impugned in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded to the dependents of the deceased under different heads. He further submits that the multiplier cannot be as per the whims and fancies of the learned Tribunal just because the deceased was a married person and the loss of non pecuniary damages to the family has to be considered and awarded as per the settled legal position more particularly the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed & Ors. vs. Mohd. Jameel & Anr., 2009 ACJ 690 (SC), which lays down the law in respect to determination and assessment of the dependency of the claimants on the deceased persons. The question as to what factors should be kept in view for calculating pecuniary loss to a dependent came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R.M.K. Veluswami and other [1962 (1) SCR 929], with reference to a case under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, wherein, K. Subba Rao, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench observed thus :

"In calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependants many imponderables enter into the calculation. Therefore, the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the dependants may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture. Shortly, stated, the general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which