JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/original claimant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and Award in M.A.C.P. No.49 of 2003 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.74,500/- inclusive of no fault liability along with interest @ 7½ % p.a. from the date of petition till realisation of the amount was granted by Award dt.2.1.2006. The claimants (appellants), by this appeal, have prayed for enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of accident. 2. The facts, stated briefly, are as under: On or about 1st January, 2003, deceased Prakash Vinayakrao Lakhakwar was proceedings towards Ashoka Hotel at Jam on foot. While he was crossing the road, the offending motor vehicle Metador bearing Registration No.MH-34 M-164 came from the Jam square while it was proceeding towards the direction of Chandrapur. It dashed the deceased while it was driven in excessive speed and rashly and negligently by Rajabhau Laxmanrao Khadokar. In the result, Prakash (deceased) s/o. claimant Smt. Bebibai sustained grievous injuries in the fatal accident and died on the spot. The claimants argued that deceased Prakash was doing business of pan shop and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and that he was the only earning member of the family. Therefore, the claimants had demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on the ground that the offending motor vehicle Metador was insured with respondent no.2/National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Rajabhau (respondent no.3) was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, which was owned by respondent no.1 Mr.Sujit Laxmanrao Khadodkar. 3. It is not in dispute that deceased Prakash was a bachelor while claimant Smt.Bebibai is his mother and Sanjay Vinayakrao Lakhakwar is his brother. The claimants also included nephew and niece of deceased Prakash as alleged dependents on him at the time of his death. It is also contended that the claimants had high hopes from deceased Prakash, but their hopes were shattered due to his untimely death. According to the claimants, since the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of his death and the only earning member of the family running a pan shop and earning about Rs.6,000/-p.m., the compensation granted was extremely inadequate. 4. Mr. According to the claimants, since the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of his death and the only earning member of the family running a pan shop and earning about Rs.6,000/-p.m., the compensation granted was extremely inadequate. 4. Mr. N.R.Saboo, learned Counsel for the claimants/appellants referring to ruling in the case of P. S. Somanathan and Others .vs. District Insurance Officer and another reported in 2011(3) Mh.L.J. 735 submitted that the compensation granted in the case of death of Prakash by the impugned judgment and Award was wrong and inadequate as proper multiplier to compute the compensation was not applied by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in P.S.Somanathan's case (supra), the Apex Court has considered the earlier ruling on the subject laying down principle for the purposes of assessment of amount of compensation awardable to dependents of the deceased in cases of death caused by motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal is required to consider many imponderables such as the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependents, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependents during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependents may 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 altogether. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependents, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income 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 dependents. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year's purchase. 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. ” 5. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. 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. ” 5. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors., 1994 (2) Mh.L.J. (SC) 1049, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made reference to the above observations while discussing the method of computation on the basis of multiplier for arriving at just compensation. The ruling in the case of Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. was also upheld in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362 . While, in the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya and Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2985 , the Apex Court observed that the choice of the multiplier was to be determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what the capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard was also to be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum would also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency was expected to last. 6. Thus, the choice of multiplier was considered important in the above rulings. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bindu and Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 705 , the Supreme Court of India has also emphasized that the choice of the multiplier was to be determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation of a capital sum which, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield by way of annual interest. 7. In Supe Dei (Smt) and Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr., (2009) 4 SCC 513 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the question of just compensation on the basis of relevant factors including appropriate multiplier considered with reference to the Second Schedule u/s.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which gave guidelines to determine appropriate multiplier and in the result, compensation to be awarded u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. 8. Then, the landmark ruling in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 775 = (2009) 6 SCC 121, made reference to various relevant factors in cases of death claims such as: (a) age of the deceased, (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents on him or her. At the same time, the Tribunal cannot overrule the issue regarding: (I) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (II) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (III) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. 9. Thus, if these facts which determine the compensation are taken into consideration, it can achieve uniformity and consistency in judicial decisions regarding compensation payable. These guidelines were incorporated in Sarla Verma's case. For ascertaining multiplicand and then the multiplier and to make actual calculation, various relevant factors are to be considered including the age of the deceased, the age of the dependents, number of family members who were dependent on the deceased at the time of his death, his life expectancy and other several imponderables in life and economic factors suggested earlier in the case of Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. (supra). 10. In the present case, the claimants include not only mother but also brother, nephew and niece of the deceased. In order to ascertain appropriate multiplier, it cannot be disputed that mother of the deceased ought to be considered as real legal representative of the deceased in order to ascertain proper multiplier. There cannot be any dispute that the law, as laid down in Sarla Verma's case, which is considered by the Apex Court as very well considered judgment, is required to be followed by examining the facts and circumstances of each case to arrive at a just, fair, proper and reasonable compensation payable under the Award and it should not be bonanza for dependents. Hyper technical view in ascertaining the multiplier is not desirable as the Tribunal is required to take into consideration claim of the family members of the deceased provided that they were dependents on the deceased at the time of his death. 11. In the present case, it appears that the age of the mother namely Bebibai, mother of deceased Prakash, is mentioned as 50 years. 11. In the present case, it appears that the age of the mother namely Bebibai, mother of deceased Prakash, is mentioned as 50 years. Assuming for the sake of arguments that appellant no.2 Jyotsna w/o. Sanjay Lakhakwar and appellant no.3 Shruti d/o. Sanjay Lakhakwar were also dependents on the deceased, their ages may also be considered. The age of Shruti is mentioned as 30 years and the age of Jyotsna is mentioned as 25 years in the deposition before the Tribunal. Suffice it to say that while examining the evidence, the ratio decidendi of Sarla Verma's case is not to be overlooked. 12. Coming back to the evidence led before the Tribunal, the respondents did not dispute the motor vehicle accident as also the fact that compensation was payable on account of the accident to the dependents of the deceased. But they have disputed quantum of compensation. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, claimant Bebibai was examined, who claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on the ground that she had two sons and her second son is unemployed and her family maintained itself on the basis of labour work. According to her, her deceased son had a pan shop, because of which they were maintaining themselves. By doing work, she used to get sum of Rs.200/- for her expenses. But she frankly admitted that she had no documents to prove that her son was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/-p.m. Her evidence regarding description of the accident as also her claim as dependent was not subjected to cross-examination. The claimants had also examined Police Officer Mr. S.S.Bagadi who had recorded F.I.R. at Crime No.1 of 2003 at Police Station, Samudrapur, who investigated into the incident of accident. While, on behalf of opponents, the driver of the offending motor vehicle was examined. 13. Thus, the dispute regarding the quantum was required to be decided on the basis of settled principles, as stated above and also bearing in mind the imponderables regarding life expectancy of the deceased as also his probable future earnings and contribution to his family, possibility of his premature death in future and also future prospects, better employment or income etc. or also loss of income. or also loss of income. The imponderable which also enter into mind in the light of the claim in the present case is that the brother and sister-in-law of the deceased and his niece though stated as members of the family, they were surviving on labour work, as admitted by Bebitai. According to her, they were also dependents on the deceased. Although it is claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/-p.m., there is no evidence to establish the fact that, out of his alleged pan shop business, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. and was contributing a sum of Rs.200/-per day to his mother. The Tribunal, in the present case, while calculating the amount of compensation ought to have considered overall view of the evidence and facts established notwithstanding the claim made to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal did consider that there was no documentary evidence regarding earning of the deceased, as claimed, in the sum of Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal considered it probable that the deceased was doing work like other family members. Thus, monthly income of the deceased was considered at Rs.2,500/- p.m. while 2/3rd amount was deducted from the yearly notional income of the deceased on the ground that he was unmarried and while considering the age of the claimant Bebitai as 55 years, the multiplier was determined as seven only. In the result, due to apparently incorrect calculations, the amount awarded was inadequate. 14. In the present facts of the case, considering that the deceased was a bachelor, it was natural for him to contribute his income and give it to his mother while he remained unmarried and it was natural for his mother to spend substantial amount for the sake of other family members which included her another son, daughter-in-law and grand daughter. But, considering the evidence that the family was earning out of labour work and due to absence of documentary evidence regarding pan shop of the deceased, I think the notional income of the deceased, who was in the age group of 25 to 30 years, ought to have been considered atleast Rs.3,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs.36,000/- per year since mother of the deceased was dependent on him notionally. Following the guidelines from Sarla Verma's case, the deceased would have spent for his personal expenses 50 % of the amount and balance 50 % he would have contributed to his family. That being so, calculation of compensation would be on the basis of annual income available for the family in the sum of Rs.18,000/- per year. No doubt they are imponderables which enter into mind while determining just and reasonable compensation awardable in such cases. But, looking into the life expectancy of the claimant and possibility of premature death of the claimant in future also one cannot overlook that the deceased also had future prospects of increase in his income or for better employment in future. Therefore, considering the multiplier as per guidelines in Second Schedule of the Act, which is 18 for the age group of 25 to 30 years of age group of the victim, the multiplier was prescribed as 18. Thus, considering all the imponderables which enter into mind and the guidelines from Sarla Verma's case, choice of multiplier would no doubt depend upon the age of the deceased or ages of claimants, whichever is higher. The balance is to be struck for arriving at just and reasonable compensation. If the claimant is in the age group of 50 to 55 years (mother in this case), the multiplier prescribed is 11 as per guidelines in Sarla Verma's case and also reading along with Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. But then, if age of the victim of 25 to 30 years, choice of multiplier is choice between 18 to 17. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I think that the deceased was required to maintain his mother as also his brother and his family and bearing in mind that it is a labour class family, I think multiplier of 15 would be a balanced and proper choice, which is neither on the higher side nor on the lower side in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, just and proper compensation payable in the present case on the basis of multiplier 15 must be applied to only income of Rs.18,000/- per year (Rs.18,000/- x 15 = Rs.2,70,000/-), which was available for the use of family of the deceased. Therefore, just and proper compensation payable in the present case on the basis of multiplier 15 must be applied to only income of Rs.18,000/- per year (Rs.18,000/- x 15 = Rs.2,70,000/-), which was available for the use of family of the deceased. Besides this, the amount of Award of compensation, as ordered by the Tribunal towards loss of estate and love and affection in the sum of Rs.2,500/- and sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses would remain unaffected by this order. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. The impugned Judgment and Order is modified in the following terms : The respondents herein shall jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- towards compensation, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and love and affection, Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses. Thus, the entire amount inclusive of no fault liability is payable along with interest @ 7 ½ % p.a. from the date of application i.e. 30.4.2003 till its realisation. The amount, if any, deposited during pendency of the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn by the appellants. Balance amount payable to claimants pursuant to this order be paid within a period of eight weeks. The record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal for execution of the award accordingly.