ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited vs Dilbag and others Dilbag and another Vs Karambir @ Lilu and others

K. Kannan, J.—Both the appeals are connected and they arise out of the same accident. The appeals are against the assessment of compensation for death of a male, aged 22 years and the claimants were his parents aged 55 and 52 respectively. The Tribunal assessed the income at the minimum wage at Rs. 4,500/- provided for a 2/3rd as dependency for the parents and adopted a multiplier of 11 on the basis of the age of the younger of the parents. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, only 50% dependency could have been taken. The counsel would also argue that at the relevant time the minimum wages was in the range of Rs. 3,750/- and the assessment taken at Rs. 4,500/- was erroneous. The claimant, on the other hand, would come up in appeal to contend that in terms of the decision in Santosh Devi Versus National Insurance Company Limited and others-2012(2) RCR (Civil) 882, the Court was also making provision for future increase at 30% which has not been done. The counsel would also argue that the choice of multiplier must depend only on the age of the claimant as per the decision in P.S. Somanathan and Others Vs. District Insurance Officer and Another, .

The total compensation assessed in this case is Rs. 3,95,000/- that includes the conventional heads of claim as well. In a case where the Court has taken the income to be Rs. 4,500/- even when the minimum wage at the relevant time was stated to be less, would really mean applying the principle of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi''s case (supra) that prospect of increase could also be taken. In the absence of any sure source of income, a provision made at Rs. 4,500/- shall be taken as making a provision for a prospect in the manner contemplated by the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi. In fact, in that case the Supreme Court was only taking the come at Rs. 1,500/- and making a provision for 30% increase. Here we have even a large sum taken at Rs. 4,500/- and there is no scope for making a further increase at 30% in the manner urged by the claimant. P.S. Somanathan''s case (supra) was rendered in the context where the claimants being not the parents but also brothers and sisters who are dependent on the deceased. This Court has an occasion to deal with the divergent streams of opinion relating to the choice of multiplier in the decision in FAO No. 1994 of 2012, decided on 13.08.2012-Smt. Surjit Kaur and others Versus Sh. Raghbir Singh and others. Normally it shall be only the age of the claimant which shall be relevant for determining the multiplier when the claimant is elder to the person who died. Exceptions do exist in the manner contemplated by P.S. Somanathan, but I find no such exception where the claimants are only the parents. The award passed by the Tribunal is fair and just and would require no intervention before this Court. Both the appeals are dismissed.