Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Ameer Akhtar Khan And 7 Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4483 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 28							     A.F.R.
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2270 of 2014
 

 
Appellant :- Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
 
Respondent :- Ameer Akhtar Khan And 7 Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Sahai
 

 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.

Since only a legal point has been raised by learned counsel for appellant and the facts are not disputed, as such, with the consent of learned counsel for appellant, the appeal is being decided at the admission stage.

Heard learned counsel for appellant.

This First Appeal From Order has been filed against the judgment and award dated 24th May, 2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court no. 3, Meerut in M.A.C. No. 1458 of 2010; Amir Akhtar and others Vs. Harichan and others whereby a sum of Rs. 4,98,401/- along with 6% simple interest from the date of institution of claim till actual payment is made, in favour of the claimants and against the appellant-Insurance Company, has been awarded.

Learned counsel for appellant has argued at length that the deceased was a minor, aged about 16 years. There was no loss of dependency, as such, the claimants could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act').

It is submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another; 2007 (2) T.A.C. 431 (S.C.) the claim only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- as envisaged under Section 140 of the Act could have been accepted and no amount under the head of loss of dependency could have been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants.

It is further submitted that under Section 166 of the Act, the Tribunal has to consider the pecuniary loss as well as non-pecuniary loss. To determine the pecuniary loss, there has to be loss of dependency. The loss of love and affection, loss of estate and such other losses like medical expenses etc. are covered under non-pecuniary loss.

Submission is that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in calculating the loss of dependency due to the death of a minor and has wrongly taken the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month to calculate the loss of income of the deceased and has wrongly applied the multiplier system in this regard by applying the multiplier of 18 to the estimated income to calculate the loss of dependency.

It is submitted that the claimants are the father, brothers and sisters of the deceased and they were not dependent on the income of the deceased. They had no right to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Act.

No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for appellant.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and gone through the record.

The learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition has framed certain issued which on reproduction read as under:

"1- D;k fnukad 29&06&09 dks le; djhc 4%00 cts tc dq0 pkanuh mQZ pkanuh [kku viuh ekrk o HkkbZ;ksa rFkk cguksa ds lkFk ek:fr oSu la[;k ;w0ih0 12ih0&4876 esa cSBdj eqtQ~Qjuxj ls esjB vk jgh Fkh rks th0Vh0 jksM nknjh xkao ftyk esjB ls igys cl la[;k Mh0,y01ih-ch-&6822 ds pkyd us cl dks rsth o ykijokgh ls pykdj xyr lkbZM ls vkdj ek:fr oSu esa VDdj ekj nh] ftlls dq0 pkanuh ds pksVs vk;h vkSj mUgha pksVksa ds dkj.k mldh e`R;q gks x;h\

2- D;k nq?kZVuk dh frfFk dks iz'uxr~ cl ua0 Mh0,y01ih-ch-&6822 ds pkyd ds ikl oS| ,oa izHkkoh pkyu vuqKfIr Fkh\

3- D;k nq?kZVuk dh frfFk dks iz'uxr~ okgu foi{kh la0&2 ls chfer Fkk\

4- ;kphx.k fdruk izfrdj vkSj fdl i{k ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\"

The learned Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the alleged accident in which the deceased, namely, Km. Chandani, aged about 16 years had died, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration no. DL 1PB-6822.

There is no dispute that the age of deceased at the time of occurrence of accident was about 16 years.

The learned Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation has come to conclusion that the notional income of the deceased shall be Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. In fact, the claimants had claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by giving tuition to the children, however, in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the same, the Tribunal has not accepted the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month and relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lala Badhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others; AIR 2001 SC 3218 as well as Kishan Gopal and others Vs. Lala and others; 2013 (4) ACCD 2164 has come to conclusion that the income of a child can be treated to be financial help to the family and the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- can be taken to be just and proper. The learned Tribunal on that basis taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month has applied the multiplier as provided by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others; 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) to come to conclusion that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal in addition to the same has also awarded a sum of Rs. 54,401/- towards medical expenses which were incurred in the treatment of the deceased and has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards love and affection i.e. in total a sum of Rs. 4,98,401/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants and against the appellant who is said to be insurer of the offending vehicle.

So far as the contention of learned counsel for appellant that since the deceased was a minor at the time of occurrence of accident and the claimants cannot claim to be dependent on the income of the deceased and there was no loss of dependency, as such, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation towards loss of dependency is concerned, it is to be noted that ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera (surpa) is "even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant if he or she is legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall not be less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act". The said legal proposition cannot be read otherwise. It cannot be said that in case there is no loss of dependency, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act is not maintainable and in order to maintain the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act the necessary and mandatory factor is that there has to be loss of dependency.

The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera (supra), where the claim was filed under Section 140 of the Act, while setting aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court has held that the liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. The relevant paragraphs 11 and 12 on reproduction read as under:

"11. There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency. Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163A.

12. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned Amicus Curiae."

Learned counsel for appellant has also relied on certain observations made in the judgment separately by Justice S.H. Kapadia (as he then was), particularly paragraphs 16 and 17 which on reproduction read as under:

"16. In the impugned judgment the High Court has correctly drawn a distinction between "right to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to compensation". The High Court has rightly held that even a married daughter is a legal representative and she is certainly entitled to claim compensation. It was further held, on the facts of the present case, that the married daughter was not dependent on her father. She was living with her husband in her husband's house. Therefore, she was not entitled to claim statutory compensation. According to the High Court, the claimant was not dependent on her father's income. Hence, she was not entitled to claim compensation based on "No Fault Liability".

17. In my opinion, "No Fault Liability", envisaged in Section 140 of the said Act, is distinguishable from the rule of "Strict Liability". In the former, the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs. 50,000/- in cases of death [Section 140(2)]. It is a statutory liability. It is an amount which can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal. Since, the amount is a fixed amount/crystallized amount, the same has to be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was an earning member. The statutory compensation could constitute part of his estate. His legal representative, namely, his daughter has inherited his estate. She was entitled to inherit his estate. In the circumstances, she was entitled to receive compensation under "No fault Liability" in terms of Section 140 of the said Act. My opinion is confined only to the "No Fault Liability" under Section 140 of the said Act. That section is a Code by itself within the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."

On whole reading of the judgment, it is very much clear that the Apex Court has categorically held that even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which cannot be less than the amount as envisaged under Section 140 of the Act.

At this stage, it is relevant to point out that the legal question on which learned counsel for appellant has argued was considered by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Manager vs. Mani Ram and others; 2013 (100) ALR 771. This Court has come to conclusion that the claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement and while assessing the quantum, multiplier system is applied to determine the compensation. The relevant paragraphs of judgment on reproduction read as under:

"The short question involved is whether the claimants, in case not dependent on the deceased, as claimed by learned counsel for appellant, are entitle to get compensation as determined under Section 166 of the Act or whether the compensation is to be determined only as per Section 140 of the Act.

Section 166 of the Act provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) whether death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may. For convenience Section 166 of the Act is reproduced below:

"166. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made--

a. By the person who has sustained the injury; or

b. By the owner of the property; or

c. Where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

d. By any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be imp leaded as respondents to the application.

2. Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

Provided that where any claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.

3. [******]

4.Where a police officer has filed a copy of the report regarding an accident to a Claims Tribunal under this Act, the Claims Tribunal may, if it thinks necessary so to do, treat the report as if it were an application for compensation under this Act."

Section 163 of the Act provides for payment of compensation in case of hit and run motor accidents whereas Section 163A of the Act provides for special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis and Section 163B of the Act provides for option to file claim in certain cases.

For convenience Sections 163, 163A and 163B of the Act are reproduced below:

"163. Scheme for payment of compensation in case of hit and run motor accidents.- (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make a scheme specifying, the manner in which the scheme shall be administered by the General Insurance Corporation, the form, manner and the time within which applications for compensation may be made, the officers or authorities to whom such applications may be made, the procedure to be followed by such officers or authorities for considering and passing orders on such applications, and all other matters connected with, or incidental to, the administration of the scheme and the payment of compensation.

(2) A scheme made under sub-section (1) may provide that--

a. a contravention of any provision thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for such term as may be specified but in no case exceeding three months, or with fine which may extend to such amount as may be specified but in no case exceeding five hundred rupees or with both;

b. the powers, functions or duties conferred or imposed on any officer or authority by such scheme may be delegated with the prior approval in writing of the Central Government, by such officer or authority to any other officer or authority;

c. any provision of such scheme may operate with retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of establishment of the Solatium Fund under the Motor Vehicles Act,1939, (4 of 1939.) as it stood immediately before the commencement of this Act:

Provided that no such retrospective effect shall be given so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person who may be governed by such provision.

163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.

163B. Option to file claim in certain cases.-Where a person is entitled to claim compensation under Section 140 and Section 163A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both."

Section 140 of the Act relates to liability to pay the compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. Section 140 for convenience is reproduced below:

"140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.- (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub- section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty-five thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twelve thousand rupees.

(3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

(4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement."

The learned Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation has come to conclusion that the age of deceased at the time of death was 58 years, his annual income was Rs. 5051X12 = 60612/-. In case he had remained alive, he would have spent 1/3rd of the aforesaid amount on his own expenses where saved 2/3rd i.e. Rs. 40,408/-. The learned Tribunal applying the multiplier of 8 as per Second Schedule of Section 163A of the Act has calculated the amount of compensation as Rs. 3,23,264/-, over and above aforesaid amount the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as expenses for his last rites, as such, an amount of Rs. 3,25,264/- as total amount of compensation along with 6% simple interest from the date of institution of claim petition was awarded by the Tribunal.

In the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera (supra), the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the question as to whether the claim petition filed by a person who is not dependent on the deceased is entitle to get any compensation or not. This fact is evident from reading of first para of the judgment itself, which on reproduction reads as under:

"An interesting question is involved in this appeal. By the impugned judgment the Calcutta High Court held that though the appellant, a married daughter of Bata Krishan Mondal (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') she was not entitled to any compensation as she was not dependent upon the deceased. Factual position is undisputed and needs a brief reference."

The Apex Court while deciding the aforesaid question has come to conclusion that even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act.

Learned counsel for appellant has laid great stress on the observations of the Apex Court in paragraphs preceding to the concluding paragraphs.

The relevant paragraphs on reproduction read as under:

"There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings. As noted above, liability in terms of Section 140 of the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency.

Section 165 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. The explanation includes the liability under Sections 140 and 163-A.

Judged in this background where a legal representative who is not dependent files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned Amicus Curiae"

Reading the entire judgment of the Apex Court and taking into consideration the question which was before the Apex Court, there is no doubt in my mind that the Apex Court has held that merely loss of dependency of claimants on the deceased would not amount to say that the claimants are not entitle to get compensation under Section 163A of the Act and would entitle the claimant to get compensation as per Section 140 of the Act at least.

The Apex Court has categorically held that the right to file a claim application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. While assessing the quantum, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the question of entitlement. Firstly, the liability of the person who is liable and the person who is to indemnify the liability, if any. Next is the quantification and Section 166 is is primarily in the nature of recovery proceedings.

In the present case, first of all it has not been proved before the Tribunal that the claimants have not proved beyond doubt that the claimants were not dependent on the deceased. Secondly, it is to be noted that there is no bar under the Act that while calculating the amount of compensation, the Court cannot take into consideration Section 163A of the Act and apply the multiplier as provided under Second Schedule of the Act, in case there is no dependency on the claimants. Moreover, in the present case the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act claiming the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. It was not a case of no fault liability or hit & run."

In the case of Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another; 2013 (2) T.A.C. 369 (S.C.), the Apex Court was ceased with the matter where the age of the deceased was 15 years. The Apex Court relying on the various judgments of the Supreme Court has held that the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of table as prescribed in Sarla Verma (supra) shall be applied in case of death. In paragraph 40, the Court has summed up the conclusions which on reproduction read as under:

"40. In what we have discussed above, we sum up our conclusions as follows:

(I)In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table prepared in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment.

(II)In cases where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years, irrespective of the Section 166 or Section 163A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma should be followed.

(III)As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act.

(IV)The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in cases of death.

(V)While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow paragraph 24 of the Judgment in Sarla Verma.

(VI)Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above.

(VII)The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration."

(emphasis supplied)

It is also to be noted that in paragraph 33 of the case of Reshma Kumari (supra), the Apex Court has taken into consideration the loss of dependency and has held that to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income, the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased and the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. Relevant paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment on reproduction read as under:

"33. We have already noticed the table prepared in Sarla Verma for the selection of multiplier. The table has been prepared in Sarla Verma having regard to the three decisions of this Court, namely, Susamma Thomas1, Trilok Chandra3 and Charlie18 for the claims made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. The Court said that multiplier shown in Column (4) of the table must be used having regard to the age of the deceased. Perhaps the biggest advantage by employing the table prepared in Sarla Verma is that the uniformity and consistency in selection of the multiplier can be achieved. The assessment of extent of dependency depends on examination of the unique situation of the individual case. Valuing the dependency or the multiplicand is to some extent an arithmetical exercise. The multiplicand is normally based on the net annual value of the dependency on the date of the deceased's death. Once the net annual loss (multiplicand) is assessed, taking into account the age of the deceased, such amount is to be multiplied by a ''multiplier' to arrive at the loss of dependency. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma that claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma.

34. If the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table read with paragraph 42 of the Report in Sarla Verma is followed, the wide variations in the selection of multiplier in the claims of compensation in fatal accident cases can be avoided. A standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than a criss-cross of varying methods. It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. The courts in some of the overseas jurisdictions have made this advance. It is for these reasons, we think we must approve the table in Sarla Verma for the selection of multiplier in claim applications made under Section 166 in the cases of death. We do accordingly. If for the selection of multiplier, Column (4) of the table in Sarla Verma is followed, there is no likelihood of the claimants who have chosen to apply under Section 166 being awarded lesser amount on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle than those who prefer to apply under Section 163A. As regards the cases where the age of the victim happens to be upto 15 years, we are of the considered opinion that in such cases irrespective of Section 163A or Section 166 under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the table in Sarla Verma should be followed. This is to ensure that claimants in such cases are not awarded lesser amount when the application is made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. In all other cases of death where the application has been made under Section 166, the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table in Sarla Verma should be followed."

(emphasis supplied)

It is also to be noted that the Act itself under Schedule II to Section 163A of the Act provides the method of multiplier for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency. As per the said Schedule, the age of victim is one of the factors to determine the amount of compensation. For the age up-to 15 years, the multiplier of 15 is to be applied, as such, even in case of death of a minor, the multiplier system can be applied to calculate the amount of compensation.

As such, I do not find any force in the contention raised by learned counsel for appellant.

The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.

The judgment and award under challenge in the instant appeal is hereby confirmed. The appellant shall comply the judgment and award and pay the amount of compensation in terms thereof.

The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith, for that purpose.

[Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi]

Dated: 19th August, 2014

Santosh/-