- (1.) The appeal by the claimants is on a contention that the Tribunal was in error in applying the multiplier of 5 to be dependent on the age of the claimants for death of a bachelor son who was aged 24 years. Learned counsel contends that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in P. S. Somanathan and others Vs. District Insurance Officer and another, 2011 ACJ 737 the Court must have taken the multiplier to be dependent only on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the claimants.
(2.) There are two lines of authorities that hold that in cases where the claimants are older than the person who died, the choice of multiplier should be made to depend on the age of the claimants; In some cases the age of the deceased have been taken even though the claimants are parents and aged more elder to the deceased. This conflict would be resolved only by reference to situations set out in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicle Act itself which makes uniform the application of multiplier determined on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the claimants. This again should be seen in the context of how Schedule-II itself is applicable only for death of persons or injuries to persons whose annual income is less than Rs. 40,000/-. By the application of the principle in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121 that seeks to reconcile several formulas adopted by various courts and that provided under Schedule-II itself, Supreme Court has suggested that in respect of a claim for compensation for death of a bachelor the deduction shall be 50% and it makes no specific reference about the choice of multiplier itself in that situation, although it provides of multiplier table generally on the basis of age of the deceased.
(3.) The choice of multiplier as dependent on the age of the younger of the claimants who are elder to the deceased has come to the following decisions and Salra Verma does not rule them as incorrect. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman, 2003 8 SCC 731, for a claim by parents aged 47 and 43, the multiplier of 15 was reduced to 10; In Ramesh Singh Vs. Satbir Singh, 2008 2 SCC 667, choice of multiplier of 8 for a parent aged 55 for death of a bachelor son was held to be appropriate. In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Deo Patodi, 2009 13 SCC 123, the Supreme Court applied a multiplier of 13 for death of a bachelor aged 22 on the basis of the age of parents. In Sabti Dvi Vs. New India Insurance Co.Ltd., 2010 14 SCC 575, the Court while specifically adverting to Sarla Verma held that in respect of claim by parents for the death of a bachelor, (where the age of the claimant was higher than the age of the deceased) the age of the claimant and not the age of the deceased should be taken. In Maharashtra SRTC Vs. Lalnipulli and others, 2006 13 SCC 226, the Supreme Court held that "the settled position in law is that where parents are the claimants, the age of the deceased is not relevant and it is the age of the claimants which would determine the multiplier to be adopted".;