JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Sarvesh Aggarwal, counsel for the appellant, Sri D.S. Patni, counsel for the respondent no. 10. 2. By the present A.O., appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and award dated 25.1.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge (1st Fast Track Court), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 78 of 2000. 3. Briefly stated, a claim petition under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed being M.A.C.P. No. 78 of 2000 Sri Bachan Singh and others Vs. Sri Rakesh Kumar alleging therein that on 3rd March, 1990 at about 7:30 p.m., deceased Mangla being a pillion rider with Sri Vijendra Singh was going on Scooter to Village Shivrajpur, when the deceased reached near Shivrajpur Mor, all of a sudden a Truck bearing No. D.L. No. 1 G-6218 (hereinafter referred to as Offending Truck), which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed the Scooter, due to which deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot. First information report of this accident was lodged in Police Station-Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 74 of 1999 under Sections 79/338/304 A, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, The offending truck was allotted a new Number as U.P. 20-D-8759 by the R.T.O. Bijnor in place of D.L. 1G-6218. At the time of accident, the deceased was 35 years of age and is survived by his six minor children. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the work of dairy and as a labourer. 4. The defendants no. 2, 3 and 4 have filed the written statement, wherein they have denied the factum of having died on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending track. They have also stated that the offending truck was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. with cover note no. 120137, which was valid from 5.3.1998 to 4.3.1999. 5. The defendant no. 4 has also filed its written statement. According to it, the accident had occurred due to own negligence of the Scooter and the Insurance Company, therefore, is not responsible for the same and the responsibility lies with the owner of the offending truck. 6. 120137, which was valid from 5.3.1998 to 4.3.1999. 5. The defendant no. 4 has also filed its written statement. According to it, the accident had occurred due to own negligence of the Scooter and the Insurance Company, therefore, is not responsible for the same and the responsibility lies with the owner of the offending truck. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the claims tribunal has framed as many as three issues to the following effect:- ß¼1½ D;k fnukad 3-3-99 dks le; 7-30 cts cgn f”kojktiqj eksM+ ds ikl dk”khiqj jksM vUrxZr Fkk tliqj ftyk m/keflag uxj esa Vªd la[;k Mhñ,yñ 1&thñ 6218 ds pkyd }kjk Vªd dks rsth vkSj ykijokgh ls pykdj e`rd eaxyk dks VDdj ekj nh] ftlls mldh e`R;q gks xbZ\ ¼2½ D;k rFkkdfFkr nq?kZVuk ds fnukad o le; ij foi{kh uañ 3 dk mDr Vªd uañ Mh,y 1 th 6218 vij eSxst “kqxj ,.M bUM fyñ L;ksgkjk] fctukSj esa le; 19&00&12 cts ls 19&26&02 cts rd xék rqyok jgk Fkk ;fn gk¡ rks bldk izHkkoA ¼3½ ;kphx.k izfrdj dh fdruh /kujkf”k vkSj fdl i{k ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA 7. Sri Bachan Singh has been examined as P.W.1 he has stated that his brother used to earn a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month and he has six minor children and after the death of his brother whole family has come on the verge of starvation. He has stated that accident had not occurred in his presence. 8. One Brijendra Singh has been examined as P.W.2 who was a pillion rider with the deceased, has stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver of the offending truck. 9. On behalf of the claimant one Avar Singh was examined as P.W.3, who was an ocular witness has stated that the deceased Mangla has died on the spot on 3.3.1999 without any fault of his own. 10. One Sri Chote Lal has been examined as P.W.4. He has also deposed about the accident. 11. On behalf of the appellant, Sri Shiv Kumar-Owner of the truck has been examined as D.W.1. He has stated that on 3.3.1999 at 7 p.m. no accident had taken place by his truck and his truck was standing in the Mill Compound at Seohara District Bijnor. He has produced a receipt Exhibit D-1, which bears signatures of Clerk of the Factory, which is computerized. He has stated that on 3.3.1999 at 7 p.m. no accident had taken place by his truck and his truck was standing in the Mill Compound at Seohara District Bijnor. He has produced a receipt Exhibit D-1, which bears signatures of Clerk of the Factory, which is computerized. Sri Pradeep Kumar Saxena has examined as D.W.2, who has proved the aforesaid receipt and supported the statement of the D.W.1. 12. While deciding the issues no. 1 and 2 a finding was recorded that the offending truck has dashed the Scooter, whereby the deceased received fatal injuries and ultimately died on the spot. 13. While deciding the Issue No. 3 with regard to the fact as to whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, it has come on the record that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month and he was aged about 35 years. 14. However, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per annum was taken as notional income and after deducing 1/3 on the dependants, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was taken into consideration as income of the deceased. Multiplier of 15 was applied and a total sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- was awarded towards compensation. 15. A finding has been recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the offending vehicle has not been found to be insured and the policy which has been filed does not relate to the Vehicle in question. 16. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Krishna Bala [2006 (64) ALR 771] Supreme Court relying upon various judgments, it has been observed as under: “6. Certain principles were highlighted by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti 1966 (3) SCR 649 in the matter of fixing the appropriate multiplier and computation of compensation. In a fatal accident action, the accepted measure of damages awarded to the dependants is the pecuniary loss suffered by them as a result of the death. “How much has the widow and family loss by the father’s death?” The answer to this lies in the oft quoted passage from the opinion of Lord Wright in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. All ERp. 665 A-B. which says: “The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend on the regularity of his employment. 665 A-B. which says: “The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which to some extent may depend on the regularity of his employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required or expended for his own personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic figure which will generally be turned sum, however, has to be taxed down by having due regard to uncertainties, for instance, that the widow might have again married and thus ceased to be dependent, and other like matter of speculation and doubt.” 8. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be consumed-7u over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. 9. The considerations generally relevant in the selection of multiplicand and multiplier were adverted to by Lord Diplock in his speech in Mallett v. Me Mongle 1969, (2) All ER 178 where the deceased was aged 25 and left behind his widow of about the same age and three minor children. On the question of selection of multiplicand Lord Diplock observed: “The starting point in any estimate of the amount of the ‘dependency’ is the annual value of the material benefits provided at the date of his death. But….there are many factors which might have led to variations up or down in the future. His earnings might have increased and with them the amount provided by him for his dependants. They might have diminished with a recession in trade or he might have had spells of unemployment. As his children grew up and became independent the proportion of his earnings spent on his dependants would have been likely to fall. But in considering the effect to be given in the award of damages to possible variations in the dependency there are two factors to be borne inmind. As his children grew up and became independent the proportion of his earnings spent on his dependants would have been likely to fall. But in considering the effect to be given in the award of damages to possible variations in the dependency there are two factors to be borne inmind. The first is that the more remote in the future is the anticipated change the less confidence there can be in the chances of its occurring and the smaller the allowance to be made for it in the assessment. The second is that as a matter of thue arithmetic of the calculation of present value, the later the change takes place the less will ½% the person value of an annuity for 20 years of which the first ten years are at $100 per annum and the second ten years at $200 per annum, is about 12 years purchase of the arithmetical average annuity of $150 per annum, whereas if the first ten years are at $200 per annum and the second ten years at $100 per annum the present value is about 14 years’ purchase of the arithmetical mean of $1590 per annum. If therefore, the chances of variations in the dependency are to be reflected in the multiplicand of which the years’ purchase is the multiplier, variations in the dependency which are not expected to take place until after ten years should have only a relatively small effect in increasing or diminishing the ‘dependency’ used for the purpose of assessing the damages/” 17. Since the decease was 35 years of age, therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the multiplier of 13 will be appropriate. 18. The Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S.Rajapriya & Ors. 2005 (4) Supreme 87 has observed as under: “8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants many not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. 9. 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his in come as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year’s purchase. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis “and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master” since there are so often many imponderables. In every case “it is the overall picture that matters”, and the curt must try to assess the best as it can the loss suffered. 11. There were two methods adopted to determine and for calculation of compensation in fatal accident actions, the first the multiplier mentioned in Davies case (supra) and the second in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. (1954(2) All ER 448). 12. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicant by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be held to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.1” 20 In view of the aforesaid, talking into consideration the income of the deceased to the extent of 10,000/- per annum multiplier of 13 being reasonable and just can be selected. The total income comes to Rs. 1,30,000/-. The claimant is also entitled to get Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses. The claimant will be entitled to get a total Rs. 1,32,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 21. Consequently, Appeal partly succeeds and is allowed with costs.