Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J. This writ petition has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, awarding a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- to the claimants who are the parents of deceased Sanjeev Kumar who sustained fatal injuries in an accident near village Datyar on the Parwanoo - Jabli Road. 2. Before adverting to the facts, I note that the specific pleading of the Insurance Company in paragraph-7 of the writ petition is that “the petitioner/Insurance company is not denying its liability and is not challenging the award of any other ground except the amount”. In these circumstances, I have not been called upon to go into the other facts of the case. 3. It is undisputed before that the deceased Sanjeev Kumar was 24 years old at the time of his death which fact stood proved by his matriculation examination certificate on the record. He was employed as Manager with Lotus Guest House, Railway Road, Kalka and was being paid Rs.3,500/- per month as consolidated salary. The salary certificate Ex.PW-1/C was proved on the record by PW-4 Ashok Kumar who was the owner of the guest house. The deceased was a Diploma holder of Computer and was performing clerical and supervising work with his employer Ashok Kumar. The learned Tribunal holds that out of this, he would be contributing Rs.2000/- for his family. In these circumstances, the annual dependency was calculated at Rs.24,000/- and a multiplier of 17 was adopted. In all a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- was awarded in this head. A sum of Rs.70,000/- was awarded as loss of a living being of the family, Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost. 4. The question with respect to grant of compensation has now been well settled by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 , which was subsequently applied and reiterated in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2012 ACJ 1428 and Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2012 ACJ 2002. Adverting to Santosh Devi’s case the Supreme Court holds:- “12. Ltd. and Others, 2012 ACJ 1428 and Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2012 ACJ 2002. Adverting to Santosh Devi’s case the Supreme Court holds:- “12. In R.K. Malik v. Kirna Pal, 2009 ACJ 1924 (SC), the two Judge Bench while dealing with the case involving claim of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, noticed the judgments in M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, 2001 ACJ 1719 (SC); Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC); General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans.Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC); Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC) and made the following observations, which are largely reflective of the philosophy that victims of the road accidents and/or their family members should be awarded just compensation: “(11) In cases of motor accidents the endeavour is to put the dependants/claimants in the pre-accidental position. Compensation in cases of motor accidents, as in other matters, is paid for reparation of damages. The damages so awarded should be adequate sum of money that would put the party, who has suffered, in the same position if he had not suffered on account of the wrong. Compensation is, therefore, required to be paid for prospective pecuniary loss, i.e., future loss of income/ dependency suffered on account of the wrongful act. (12) However, no amount of compensation can restore the lost limb or the experience of pain and suffering due to loss of life. Loss of a child, life or a limb can never be eliminated or ameliorated completely. To put it simply – pecuniary damages cannot replace a human life or limb lost. Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary losses, the law recognises that the payment should also be made for non-pecuniary losses on account of, loss of happiness, pain, suffering and expectancy of life, etc. The Act provides for payment of “just compensation” vide Sections 166 and 168. It is left to the courts to decide what would be “just compensation” in the facts of a case.” 13. In Sarla Verma’s case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), another two-Judge Bench considered various factors relevant for determining the compensation payable in cases involving motor accidents, noticed apparent divergence in the views expressed by this Court in different cases, referred to large number of precedents including the judgments in U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. In Sarla Verma’s case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), another two-Judge Bench considered various factors relevant for determining the compensation payable in cases involving motor accidents, noticed apparent divergence in the views expressed by this Court in different cases, referred to large number of precedents including the judgments in U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. V. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC); Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd., (1951) AC 601; Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., (1942) AC 601 and made an attempt to limit the exercise of discretion by the Tribunals and the High Courts in the matter of award of compensation by laying down straightjacket formula under different headings, some of which are enumerated below: “(i) Addition to income for future prospects: (11) In Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1(SC), this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC), the income was increased only by 50% and in Arati Bezbaruah, 2003 ACJ 680 (SC), the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% 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% 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 standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation 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. (ii) Deduction for personal and living expenses: (14) Though in some cases the deduction to be made for 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 standardised deductions. (ii) Deduction for personal and living expenses: (14) Though in some cases the deduction to be made for 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 standardised 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 dependent family members exceeds six. (iii) Selection of multiplier: (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.” 14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. Rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. Rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of a Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 11 of Sarla Verma’s judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self- employed or who is paid fixed wages. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 11 of Sarla Verma’s judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self- employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. 15. It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit without assigning reasons that the deceased would have spent 1/3rd of his total earning, i.e., Rs. 500/- , for personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court were totally oblivious of the hard realities of the life. It will be impossible for a person whose monthly income is Rs.1,500/- to spend 1/3rd on himself leaving 2/3rd for the family consisting of five persons. Ordinarily, such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest for his family. 16. The Tribunal’s observation that the two sons of the appellant cannot be treated dependant on their father because they were not minor is neither here nor there. In the cross- examination of the appellant, no question was put to her about the source of sustenance of her two sons. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to assume that the sons who had become major can no longer be regarded as dependant on the deceased.” (pp.1431-1433) 5. In Amrit Bhanu Shali’s case, supra, on the question of adopting a multiplier, the Supreme Court holds:- “14. We have considered the respective arguments and perused the record. The questions which arise for consideration are: (i) What should be the deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased Ritesh Bhanu Shali to decide the question of the contribution of the dependent members of the family; and (ii) What is the proper selection of multiplier for deciding the claim. 15. The questions which arise for consideration are: (i) What should be the deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased Ritesh Bhanu Shali to decide the question of the contribution of the dependent members of the family; and (ii) What is the proper selection of multiplier for deciding the claim. 15. The question relating to deduction for personal and living expenses and selection of multiplier fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). In the said case this Court taking into consideration the decisions in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC: U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, 2005 ACJ 1131 (SC); and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory,2004 ACJ 669 (SC), held as follows:- "(i) Re: Question -Deduction for personal and living expenses: (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 the standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards the 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 dependent family members exceeds 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% 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 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. Further, subject to 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% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the 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." (ii) Re: Question -Selection of multiplier: (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, M14 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." 16. Admittedly both the parents, appellant No.1 Amrit Bhanu Shali (father) and appellant No.2 Sarlaben (mother), have been held to be dependents of deceased Ritesh Bhanu Shali and, therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant No.1 and the appellant No.2 have the right to get the compensation. On the date of the accident the appellant No.3 Mamta, was not married but by the time the case was heard by the Tribunal the appellant No.3 Mamta, had already been married. In these circumstances, she is not found to be dependent upon the deceased. On the date of the accident the appellant No.3 Mamta, was not married but by the time the case was heard by the Tribunal the appellant No.3 Mamta, had already been married. In these circumstances, she is not found to be dependent upon the deceased. Thus, both the parents being dependents, that is, father and the mother, the Tribunal rightly restricted the personal and living expenses of the deceased to 50% and contribution to the family was required to be taken as 50% as per the decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). 17. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation. 18. In the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), this Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table of the said judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 26 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier of 17 and brining it down to the multiplier of 13.” (pp.2006-2007) (Emphasis supplied) 6. It is, thus, clear that the multiplier to be adopted is to be based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependants. In the present case, the Tribunal adopts a multiplier of 17 which should and ought to have been 18. On the question of dependency, since the deceased was bachelor, he would be contributing 50% of his income, which would be Rs.1750/- per month to the family. This has to be increased by 30%, as held in Santosh Devi’s case in which event, the annual dependency would work into Rs.2275 x 12 = Rs.27,300 and adopting a multiplier of 18, the dependency would work out to Rs.4,91,400/- . What I find is that in this case an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- has been awarded. This has to be increased by 30%, as held in Santosh Devi’s case in which event, the annual dependency would work into Rs.2275 x 12 = Rs.27,300 and adopting a multiplier of 18, the dependency would work out to Rs.4,91,400/- . What I find is that in this case an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- has been awarded. Even if submissions made on behalf of the respondent are accepted, still the award amount is less than that what should and ought to have been awarded under the law laid down by the Supreme Court supra. 7. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed.