JUDGMENT : V.K. Sharma, J. The present appeal and cross-objections arise out of the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001, of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur (H.P.) in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1998, titled Smt. Parsinu Devi v. The A.C.C. Gagal Cement Works, Barmana and Another, whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. five lac by way of damages on account of death of Shri Ashok Kumar due to the alleged negligence on the part of the Defendant filed by Respondent No. 1, Smt. Parsinu Devi, as Plaintiff against the Appellant and proforma Respondent No. 2 being Defendants in the suit, has been decreed, though partly in the sum of Rs. 1,64,000/ -, with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of registration of the suit, i.e. w.e.f. 27.11.1998. 2. It shall be pertinent to notice at the very outset that though initially the Plaintiff sought permission to sue as an indigent person and filed the suit in forma pauperis, yet her prayer in this regard did not find favour with the learned trial Court and was accordingly declined vide order dated 5.9.1998. Consequently, the requisite Court fee was affixed by her on the plaint and the suit proceeded further. 3. Briefly stated the case pleaded by the Plaintiff is to the effect that on 2.8.1996, at about 9.45 p.m., while her son by name Ashok Kumar, was on way back home from Barmana and was passing by DAV School, Barmana, along with two other persons, the retaining wall of the said school fell on him and one of his companions, namely, Shri Tej Singh and both of them died on the spot, as they were crushed under the debris and bricks etc. of the retaining/boundary wall. The third person, who was going ahead had a narrow escape. The deceased was a brilliant student studying in 10+2. He could rise to be a gazetted officer, had he not died in the unfortunate accident. It is further averred that the deceased was also managing the affairs of the trucks belonging to one Shri Mani Ram, who in fact is his father, who is a transporter with a fleet of 4-5 trucks at Barmana, which are engaged in transportation of cement and other goods, on monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-. In addition thereto, he was also earning Rs. 2,000/- per month from agriculture. 4. 3,000/-. In addition thereto, he was also earning Rs. 2,000/- per month from agriculture. 4. It was further averred that the Defendants had not constructed the aforesaid retaining wall with proper care and caution in as much as it was without any foundation. It was constructed in a rash and negligent manner. It being so, it had fallen on deceased Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Tej Singh and both of them had died on the spot. The wall was 70-80 feet in length and about 10 feet in height, but, without any pillar etc. for its support. Further more while leveling the school ground debris was disposed of towards the boundary wall, but, without any proper drainage etc. which led to its fall. The Plaintiff was solely dependent upon the deceased as she was living separately from her husband and other family members. A case u/s 304-A Indian Penal Code was registered against the Defendants at Police Station, Barmana, on 2.8.1996, vide FIR No. 148/96, which at the time of filing of the suit was pending before the Court of CJM, Bilaspur. 5. It was further pleaded that Defendant No. 1 has given employment to the legal heirs of deceased Shri Tej Singh, who had also died in the same accident, besides compensation of more than Rs. Two lac. However, it has not compensated the Plaintiff in any manner. It was in such circumstances that the Plaintiff served a registered notice on the Defendants, but they refused to compensate her. 6. The suit was contested by the Defendants by filing a joint written statement on legal objections as to maintainability, the death of the deceased being as a result of natural calamity on account of unprecedented rains, non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and cause of action. On merits, it was pleaded that the wall fell down on account of un-precedented rains, ft was denied that a third person was also accompanying the deceased on the day of occurrence. The income of the deceased was also disputed. It was denied that he was good at studies and could rise to be an officer. It was pleaded that the wall was old one and remained without any damage for a long time. It was constructed with due care and proper attention and there was no negligence on the part of the Defendants. The death of the deceased was due to natural calamity. It was pleaded that the wall was old one and remained without any damage for a long time. It was constructed with due care and proper attention and there was no negligence on the part of the Defendants. The death of the deceased was due to natural calamity. It was denied that the Plaintiff along with deceased was living separately from her husband. It was also denied that the wall is adjacent to the public path. It was lastly averred that neither the Plaintiff is entitled nor the Defendants are liable to pay any compensation. 7. The Plaintiff filed replication refuting the stand taken by the Defendants in the written statement and reiterating the averments set up in the plaint. 8. On the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether Ashok Kumar had died due to the negligence of the Defendants, as alleged?....OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 supra is proved, to what amount of compensation, the Plaintiff is entitled to and from which of the Defendants?.....OPP. 3. Whether the Plaintiff has no cause of action, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties?.....OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD. 6. Relief. 9. After the parties led evidence and were heard by the learned trial Court, the suit was decreed in the terms already noticed. Whereas issues No. 1 and 2 were held in affirmative, the remaining issues were decided in negative. 10. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. On the one hand, the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001, have been challenged by the Appellant (defendant No. 1) both on the point of negligence as also quantum of compensation, on the other the contesting Respondent (plaintiff) is aggrieved by the alleged inadequacy of compensation. 11. It shall be appropriate to notice the disputed facts first. The accident and the death of the deceased, Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Tej Singh, therein are not disputed even by the Defendants. This is also amply proved from the evidence on record. 11. It shall be appropriate to notice the disputed facts first. The accident and the death of the deceased, Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Tej Singh, therein are not disputed even by the Defendants. This is also amply proved from the evidence on record. However, whereas according to the Plaintiff, the accident was direct and proximate result of the rash and negligent act on the part of the Defendants in raising the boundary wall without any foundation; there being no pillars to support the same and not employing proper care and caution during its construction, the Defendants have put forth the defence of vis major, that is, act of God. According to them, the boundary wall had fallen due to un-precedented rains. The rival contentions are required to be considered, in the light of the evidence on record. 12. It is admitted even on behalf of the Plaintiff that there had been normal rain during those days. However, the Defendants have utterly failed to establish the defence of un-precedented rains. There is no definite evidence to this effect except the self serving statements of highly interest witnesses, namely DW-1, Shri Bant Singh Chandel and DW-2, Shri J.N. Prasad, being contractor and employee of Defendant No. 1. No expert evidence worth the name as to the quantum of rain that had taken place on or about the time of the occurrence has been led by the Defendants. It being so, it cannot be said that had the boundary wall been raised as per proper technical specifications, it could not have withstood normal rains. 13. Though there is no eye-witness to the accident, yet the depositions of PW-1, Smt. Parsinu Devi, PW-3, Shri Sunder Singh, PW-4, Shri Jagdish and PW-5, Shri Mani Ram, father of deceased Shri Ashok Kumar, are in the nature of res gestae. They had reached the spot scene soon after the accident. They have deposed in one voice that the boundary wall which was of the dimensions of approximately 60 feet long and 10 feet high, was raised without any foundation. Thus, there was absolute lack of due care and caution on the part of the Defendants in raising the boundary wall of the above dimensions nearby a common path without any foundation and in a haphazard manner, thus endangering human life. 14. Thus, there was absolute lack of due care and caution on the part of the Defendants in raising the boundary wall of the above dimensions nearby a common path without any foundation and in a haphazard manner, thus endangering human life. 14. Another aspect which cannot be lightly overlooked is as to the age of the boundary wall. In this regard, there is material contradiction between the pleadings set up on behalf of the Defendants and the evidence led to prove the same. In the written statement it was specifically pleaded that the boundary wall was "an old one" and "remained without any damage to it for a long time (since its construction)". However, DW-1, Shri Bant Singh Chandel, has stated during cross examination that the boundary wall was raised by Shri Ganga Ram, contractor, about two yeas from the occurrence. Since the boundary wall was not constructed during the tenure of DW-2, Shri J.N. Prasad, his testimony with regard to its age is not very material. Thus, if the wall was only two years old and had it been raised as per proper technical specifications, it could not have collapsed due to normal rains unless there was some inherent defect in its construction. Thus, the only conclusion, that is, deducible from the facts and circumstances of the case is that the boundary wall was raised in a haphazard manner, without any foundation and employing due care and caution, so as to obviate the possibility of its notwithstanding the vicissitudes and vagaries of weather. 15. In view of the above, in a way this can very well be said to be a case of res ipsa loquitor. Here the things speak for themselves in as much as that the boundary wall raised by the Defendants fell on the passers by using the thoroughfare along side the wall. It being so, the Defendants cannot avoid liability for the rash and negligent act on their part in not raising and maintaining the boundary wall as per the required standards and thus endangering valuable human life. 16. Now, while adverting to the quantum of compensation it would be seen that, whereas the Plaintiff had claimed Rs. Five lac as damages, the learned trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,64,000/- with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of registration of the suit, that is, 27.11.1998. 16. Now, while adverting to the quantum of compensation it would be seen that, whereas the Plaintiff had claimed Rs. Five lac as damages, the learned trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,64,000/- with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of registration of the suit, that is, 27.11.1998. Much emphasis has been laid on behalf of the Appellant (defendant No. 1) on the income of the deceased and multiplier as calculated and applied by the learned trial, Court. It was pleaded in para 4 of the plaint that the deceased was studying in 10+2. The averments to this effect have not been specifically denied by the Defendants. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the deceased was a student of 10+2. The assertion on behalf of his father, PW-5, Shri Mani Ram, in the opening lines of cross examination that at the time of the accident the deceased was graduate and had acquired this decree six months prior to the accident is contrary to the evidence on record. Even in notice Ex.PC, dated 4.1.1997, it was stated vide para 3 that the deceased was studying in 10+2. 17. According to the Plaintiff, the deceased was managing the affairs of the trucks belonging to his father PW-5, Shri Mani Ram, on a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-, apart from which he was having additional income of Rs. 2,000/- from agriculture. However, there is no documentary evidence to this effect. The Plaintiff Smt. Parsinu Devi, while appearing as PW-1 has stated that the deceased used to manage the affairs of the trucks and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. She has not stated anything about the income from agriculture. To the similar effect is the statement of PW-4, Shri Jagdish, with regard to the income of the deceased. PW-5, Shri Mani Ram, father of the deceased has stated that the deceased used to manage the affairs of his trucks and he used to pay him Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, he has admitted that he cannot produce any documentary proof to this effect. This is the entire evidence about the income of the deceased. In the absence of any cogent documentary evidence it cannot be said that the deceased was being paid monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/- for managing affairs of the trucks belonging to his father, PW-5, Shri Mani Ram. This is the entire evidence about the income of the deceased. In the absence of any cogent documentary evidence it cannot be said that the deceased was being paid monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/- for managing affairs of the trucks belonging to his father, PW-5, Shri Mani Ram. The inference drawn by the learned trial Court that though it cannot be believed that the father of the deceased used to pay monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/- to the deceased for managing affairs of the trucks belonging to him, yet it can be safely inferred that he was rendering assistance by way of looking after the business of his father, is borne out of the evidence on record. However, the further inference drawn by the learned trial Court that it can be reasonably estimated that monthly income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 2,000/- by way of rendering such services, is not based on the sound appreciation of evidence. Even if the deceased who was a student of 10+2 was rendering assistance in the transportation business of his father and such assistance is quantified in terms of money, it cannot in any case be more than Rs. 1,500/- per month or say Rs. 50/- per day for the reason that at best it was only part time work, the main pursuit being his studies. 18. The Plaintiff, Smt. Parsinu Devi, has stated in the opening lines of her deposition as PW-1 that the deceased was aged 21 years and was bachelor. There is no challenge on the age of the deceased on behalf of the Defendants. In the postmortem report Ex.PA and FIR Ex.PB also the age of the deceased is recorded as 21 years. 19. While making statement as PW-1, the Plaintiff, Smt. Parsinu Devi, has disclosed her age 61 years. However, PW-5, Shri Mani Ram, who is her husband has disclosed his age as 65 years and has admitted in the last lines of cross examination that she was aged 60 years. 20. With regard to the quantum of compensation whereas Appellant (defendant No. 1) has placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. 20. With regard to the quantum of compensation whereas Appellant (defendant No. 1) has placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the contesting Respondent (plaintiff) seeks support from an authority of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench, reported as Shyam Sundar and Anr. v. Mahesh Prasad and Ors. 2009 ACJ 830. However, the case relied upon on behalf of the contesting Respondent (plaintiff) is clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the case before the Hon'ble High Court the matter was with regard to payment of compensation in respect of the death of a child aged 14-1/2 years, in the case in hand the deceased was aged 21 years. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. supra, has laid down the following prepositions of law with regard to (i) Addition to income for future prospectus, (ii) Deduction for personal and living expenses and (iii) Selection of multiplier, vide paras 11, 14, 15 and 21 of the judgment: 11. In Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), this Court increased the income by nearly 100 per cent, in Sarla Dixit, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC), the income was increased only by 50 per cent and in Arati Bezbaruah, 2003 ACJ 680 (SC), the income was increased by a mere 7 per cent. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30 per cent if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. There should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra's case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of the dependent family members exceed six. 15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to the evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant and 50 per cent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant and 50 per cent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. 21. We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. 22. Since the monthly income of the deceased has already been quantified at Rs. 1,500/-, the notional monthly income on account of 'Addition to income for future prospectus' would come to Rs. 2,250/ -, which can further be scaled down by 50% to Rs. 1,125/- by taking resort to' Deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased by taking into consideration the fact that he was bachelor and apart from him it is only the Plaintiff who being his mother can be said to be his sole legal heir/dependant, as all other family members do not either fall in the category of Class-I heirs or were self reliant. 23. With monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1,125/-, the yearly income comes to Rs. 13,500/- (1125 x 12). In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide para 21 of the judgment in the Sarla Verma's case, supra, the appropriate multiplier in this case would be 18. 23. With monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1,125/-, the yearly income comes to Rs. 13,500/- (1125 x 12). In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide para 21 of the judgment in the Sarla Verma's case, supra, the appropriate multiplier in this case would be 18. It has been fixed keeping in view the age of the deceased at the time of his unfortunate death in the accident, that is, 21 years. With application of multiplier 18, the amount of compensation payable to the Plaintiff for the death of the deceased in the accident comes to Rs. 13,500 x 18 : Rs. 2,43,000, to which further sums of Rs. 5,000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss to the estate and Rs. 10,000/ - on account of loss of love and affection, are liable to be added, taking the total amount of compensation to Rs. 2,63,000/-. 24. In view of the above, whereas the appeal filed by the Appellant (defendant No. 1) being RFA No. 353 of 2001, is liable to be dismissed, the cross objections preferred by the Cross-Objector/respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) deserve to be allowed. 25. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The cross objections are allowed and it is held that the cross objector/ Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) is awarded compensation of Rs. 2,63,000/ - along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit, that is, 27.11.1998 till realization instead of Rs. 1,64,000/- with costs and interest @ 9% per annum awarded by the learned trial Court. The impugned judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001, shall stand modified accordingly. It is made clear that any amount already deposited/released to the cross-objector/respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) shallbe liable to be adjusted against the amount of compensation awarded herein. 26. The appeal and cross-objections stand disposed of in the above terms. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The trial Court record be sent back.