- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. The appeal has been made for admission before this Court on the ground that the learned Judge in deciding the matter committed two errors firstly reduction was made only to the extent 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards the personal expenses and secondly, the multiplier has not been properly applied. We are of the view that the points are so short that even at this stage particularly when the caveator is present, the same can be heard and disposed of on the informal papers on the parties' agreement of hearing the appeal in such a way, to which they are agreeable. These two law points are totally covered by various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Therefore, we do not find any need and necessity of calling for the records of the Court below. Apart from that the bulk of the litigation cannot be kept pending indefinitely when the applicability of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts are available.
(2.) SO far as the personal expenses are concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant cited judgment reported in 2000 (1) TAC 208 (SC), Donat Louis Machado & Ors. v. L. Ravindra & Ors. , whereunder it was held that claimants who are the parents and unmarried sister and who are dependent on him would have got at least 1/3rd amount as he would have spent the rest of 2/3rd amount of his earnings on his own family which he would have raised and on himself. Upon going through such part as pointed out, we find that the inference has been laid-down by the Court on the basis of the factual circumstances therein. However, we have to go by the judgment to judgment of the Supreme Court and High Courts to come to the appropriate conclusion. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents claimant cited judgment reported in (2004) 2 SCC 473, Fakeerappa & Anr. v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory & Ors. , by showing paragraph 8 therein where the Court held that it is appropriate to restrict the deduction of personal expenses of 1/3rd of the monthly income. However, all the judgments on this point has been thoroughly considered by the Division Bench of the M. P. High Court reported in 2007 (1) TAC 443 (MP), Dr. Deo Patodi & Anr. v. Devendra Arora & Anr. Paragraph 9 of such judgment is as follows : "the Claims Tribunal has deducted 2/3rd amount of personal expenses relying on the basis of the judgment passed by the High Court of M. P. , Bench Gwalior in Halkibai & Anr. v. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. , 2004 ACJ 481, wherein this Court had held that in case of death of unmarried person looking to the fact that he would have married in near future 2/3rd amount should be deducted towards his own expenses. A similar view is taken by the Apex Court in the case of Donat Louis Machado v. L. Ravindra, 1999 ACJ 1400 : 2000 (1) TAC 208 (SC ). But, from perusal of both these judgments it appears that this judgment did not laid down in hard and fast rule, on the other hand the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Dugar v. Vidyadhar Datta, 2006 (2) SCC 242 : 2006 (1) TAC 969, has assessed the compensation after deduction of 1/3rd amount for the death of an unmarried. In case of Fakeerappa & Anr. v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory & Ors. , 2004 (1) JCLR 788 (SC) : 2004 ACJ 699 : 2004 (2) TAC 8, the Apex Court has deducted 1/3rd amount towards the own expenses and awarded compensation to the appellants/parents at 2/3rd. " Therefore, we have to go by the latest position as it has been held by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court that with rigid principle of 2/3rd of the personal expenses cannot be applicable everywhere. Therefore, when factually the learned Court below held that the personal expenses can be 1/3rd of the income, we do not find any necessity of interference. The second point is about the applicability of the multiplier. So far as this point is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment reported in 2005 (2) JCLR 863 (SC) : AIR 2005 SC 2985, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya, for the use of appropriate multiplier. However, such judgment is factually distinguishable for the reason that in the above referred case the age of the deceased was considered but in the present case the multiplier has to be determined according to the age of the parents. To that extent the ratio of multiplier is very much clear in 2003 (1) TAC 490 (SC), Gyan Chandra Jain & Anr. v. Premanand & Ors. , which is applicable herein. There it was held that since the deceased was unmarried and the age of the mother was 49 years and that of the father was 55 years, the total loss of dependency has to be determined keeping in view of the age of the parents. It is also implied in 2004 (1) TAC 3 (SC), Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Shri Laxman Iyer & Anr. From the fact, it appears that the age of father is 38 years, therefore, appropriate multiplier above 35 years not exceeding 40 years is being 16 as per the Second Schedule under Section 163-A has been rightly applied in this case. Under such circumstance, we do not find any genuine cause for interference in this case.
(3.) HENCE we dismiss the appeal on contest. However, no order is passed as to costs. Pankaj Mithal, J.- I agree. Appeal dismissed. .;