Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. This appeal is preferred, against judgment and award dated 23.9.2011, passed by the learned District Judge-1 and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, in MACP No.140 of 2009, by appellant - The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune, whereby the claim, by the widow of the deceased and two children viz. aged about 22 and 18 years respectively, was allowed in the sum of Rs.10,30,556/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 3. Shri D.N. Kukday, learned counsel appearing for appellant - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., submitted that in the facts and circumstances, stated by the claimants, the awarded sum was excessive and exorbitant as the learned Member of the Tribunal could not have awarded the compensation by applying excessive multiplier “14”. He has invited my attention to the fact, that one of the claimants Roshan, who was aged about 22 years old, is a major and could have earned on his own after completion of his education in near future while another claimant Kumari Radhika, who was aged about 18 years old, was of marriageable age. Widow Suchita, whose age is mentioned as 44 years old while victim of the accident was aged about 55 years and 7 months old. The victim was in service serving as a “Clerk” in APMC at Amravati. 4. It is contended by the claimants that the deceased was having salary in the sum of Rs.8,938/- per month, as also in the evidence. Under these circumstances, even the learned Member of the Tribunal, in the course of the discussion, in the impugned judgment and award, in paragraph No.23, observed, thus: “Therefore, if the age of the deceased as 55 years and 7 months is considered, factor applicable would be of 9.” Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted, that multiplier “14” was wrongly applied by the learned Member of the Tribunal and the compensation could have been granted reasonably and justly by applying appropriate multiplier of “9” even in view of Sarla Verma’s case considering that the victim was nearing his retirement and 55 years plus. While on the other side the learned counsel appearing for the respondents claimants contended with reference to the ruling in the case of Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, reported at (2013) 9 SCC 54 , to argue that Sarla Verma ruling was referred to by the Apex Court and the compensation was awarded on the basis of the prospective increases added to the salary and by applying appropriate multiplier. My attention is invited to the “Tabular Details” mentioned in paragraph No.19 of the said ruling to submit that, in that case loss of consortium in the sum of Rs.1.00 Lac, loss of care and guidance for minor children in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- Lac and funeral expenses in the sum of Rs.25,000/- were awarded respectively. 5. In my opinion, the case of Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, cited supra, was with reference to the Special Leave Petition entertained by the Apex Court and the controversy before the Supreme Court was regarding the deceased working as a “Clerk” in a School under the Education Department in the State of Haryana. In that case, the salary per month was stated in the sum of Rs.9,520/- per month to which considering age of the victim which was around 40 years, prospective increases in the sum of Rs.4,760/- per month were added and the Apex Court then considered the number of claimants to deduct 1/4th of the amount towards personal expenses and then by applying multiplier of “16”, the compensation amount was arrived at. While considering the judicial precedent, this Court also have to bear in mind the peculiar circumstances of the case. In the present case, victim Vijay was 55 years and 7 months old at the time of accident and would have retired on superannuation at the age of 58 years. Therefore, the multiplier, as also prospective increases in the income, as considered by the Apex Court so as to award compensation, the same principle which relates to the State of Haryana, would not be squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, because the compensation which is to be awarded is just and fair and reasonable and not jackpot for the claimants. 6. 6. In the present case, claimant Suchita is widow, her age is mentioned as 44 years while other claimants have already attained the age of majority and they are likely to earn on their own in the near future. This fact has to be borne in mind while awarding the compensation in the present case. Considering the salary, in the evidence, Rs.8,938/- multiplied by “12”, it comes to Rs.1,07,256/- and then multiplied by “9” as applicable multiplier, I think is proper compensation considering that the claimant widow would be solely dependent but other claimants may earn on their own in near future after completion of their education. One of the claimants who is of marriageable age would marry and leave the home to reside with her husband. 7. Considering all these pros and cons in the facts and circumstances of the case, if we calculate the amount after deduction of 1/3rd notional personal expenses, which the deceased could have spent for his own, the loss of dependency sum would come to Rs.71,508/-. Regarding prospective increases in the salary considering age of superannuation of the victim in near future, the amount of Rs.71,508/- for loss of dependency per year was considered. Then towards prospective addition 15% amount will have to be considered. At least amount of Rs.30,000/- would be payable and added towards the prospective increases and reasonable sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection for children and Rs. 50,000/- for loss of consortium for widow and sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus the total sum of Rs.1,30,000/- can be added to the compensation. Total in the sum of Rs.7,73,572/- is reasonable and just compensation payable to the claimants in this case upon considering the age of the widow. Therefore the award is modified accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant, owner and driver shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the reasonable sum of Rs.7,73,572/ (instead of sum of Rs.10,30,556/-) to the claimants inclusive of “no-fault liability” amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 9. Out of the amount deposited by the appellant – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. 9. Out of the amount deposited by the appellant – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., in this Court, the amount awarded and calculated as above, shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants and balance amount, or surplus, if any, be refunded to the appellant. The amount deposited, if any, in this Court, be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement pursuant to final award. No order as to costs.