1. This is an appeal in a Motor Accident Claim case. 2. Heard. I have perused the record. 3. On 12. 8.2002, deceased-Rashpal Dass Sharma had boarded a Maruti Car bearing registration No. JK01D- 6116. Late Vinod Kumar Bamba was driving the car. It was raining very heavily and a nallah near the cremation ground, Toph Sher Khanian, Jammu was over flowing with rainwater. Driver of the car tried to cross the over flowing nallah, the car got stuck in water in middle of the nallah and both the occupants, that is, deceased-Rashpal Dass Sharma and the driver died in the result. Dead body of the deceased was recovered from Toph Sher Khanian Pully, Shakti Nagar on 14.08.2002. 4. Legal representatives of the deceased, herein respondents 1 to 4, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short the Tribunal). Learned Tribunal vide its order/award dated 15.07.2009 found that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending car it got washed away in the high current nallah, which at the time of accident was in flood due to heavy rain. Learned Tribunal, therefore, awarded compensation of Rs. 32,19,000/to the claimants. The offending vehicle at the relevant time was insured for third party risk with appellant-company and liability of satisfying the award is to be discharged by the appellant. 5. Head wise breakup of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under:- 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 31,59,000/ 2. Lost of consortium Rs. 20,000/ 3. Last rites Rs. 20,000/ 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 20,000/ Total Rs. 32,19,000/ 6. While assessing the compensation, learned Tribunal found that the deceased, who at the time of his death was working as a Branch Manager in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 17,379/. Learned Tribunal, however, for the purpose of calculating compensation raised his monthly income to Rs. 27,000/taking into consideration the service and promotion prospects available to the deceased during his service had he lived. In this behalf learned Tribunal relied upon the evidence rendered by claimants witness, Desh Bandhu, an Assistant Administration Officer of the LIC that deceased may have earned four more promotions and risen up to the rank of a Senior Divisional Manager. 27,000/taking into consideration the service and promotion prospects available to the deceased during his service had he lived. In this behalf learned Tribunal relied upon the evidence rendered by claimants witness, Desh Bandhu, an Assistant Administration Officer of the LIC that deceased may have earned four more promotions and risen up to the rank of a Senior Divisional Manager. Alongside the Tribunal deducted one-fourth of the income, that is, Rs. 6,750/, towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Learned Tribunal, thus took the remaining Rs. 20,250/as monthly contribution of the deceased towards the claimants and accordingly Rs. 2,43,000/(20,250x12) as the annual contribution, that is, the multiplicand. 7. Age of the deceased has been taken as 43 years as an admitted position and for the purpose of applying the multiplier, learned Tribunal bracketed him in the age group of 42 to 45 years. Learned Tribunal, therefore, observed that multiplier applicable to this age group under 2nd Schedule to the Act was 15, while scaling it down, applied the multiplier of 13 and awarded compensation of Rs. 31,59,000 (2,43,000x13) under the head loss of dependency. 8. Appellant-Insurance Company has impugned the award in this appeal on the grounds that learned Tribunal has erred in raising the monthly salary of the deceased to Rs. 27,000/from Rs. 17,500/as there was no material available on record for making this increase. It is contended further that while applying 2nd schedule of the Act for selecting multiplier, learned Tribunal has erred in applying the same schedule for awarding compensation under other heads. Compensation of Rs. 20,000/each under other heads is much on higher side. Deduction of one-fourth of income towards personal expenses has also been assailed. Interest on the award amount has been assailed on the ground that the claim petition remained pending for four years due to lapses on the claimants. 9. Besides above grounds award has been assailed also on the ground that learned Tribunal has ignored appellant s plea raised through amended objections that the insurance policy in question did not cover the flood clause so appellant-insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured. This plea is being taken up first hereafter. 10. 9. Besides above grounds award has been assailed also on the ground that learned Tribunal has ignored appellant s plea raised through amended objections that the insurance policy in question did not cover the flood clause so appellant-insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured. This plea is being taken up first hereafter. 10. The plea in this regard would not lie, firstly, because such plea was not raised before the learned Tribunal and secondly, learned Tribunal having found that accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver, operation of flood clause, if any, or its absence in the policy will not come up for consideration. It needs to be pointed out in this behalf that learned Tribunal has stated in the award that plea as regards non existence of flood clause was taken up by the appellant at a later stage by way of amendment. However, learned counsel for the claimants pointed out, what has been found correct on perusal of record, that as a matter of fact the Tribunal vide order dated 01.05.2008 had refused amendment in this regard, taking the view inter alia that the accident allegedly had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. 11. As regards the main grounds on which impugned award has been assailed, Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, would say that learned Tribunal has passed the award without applying law relevant on the point. Learned Tribunal has presumed progress in the career of the deceased without a plea in this regard having been taken in the claim application. Learned Tribunal has acted arbitrarily in making deduction of one-fourth income towards personal expenses of the deceased and has erred in resorting to second schedule in selecting the multiplier. Learned counsel concluded that relevant principles as compiled by the Supreme Court in (Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298 ) have not been followed. 12. It is indisputable that learned Tribunal has applied multiplier method, which is well recognized for assessing the amount of compensation payable to the legal representatives/dependents of a road accident victim. Simple question thus arising would be as to whether multiplier method as qualified and amplified by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) has been correctly applied by the learned Tribunal. 13. Simple question thus arising would be as to whether multiplier method as qualified and amplified by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) has been correctly applied by the learned Tribunal. 13. It may be stated in brief that multiplier method involves ascertainment of the monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death, his annual contribution towards his dependents (claimants) depending upon their number, which is called multiplicand, and its multiplication with a figure, called multiplier, to be selected on the basis of the age of the deceased. 14. In Sarla Verma, Supreme Court has summarized thus: 9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants.. Multiplicand 15. It is not disputed and is sufficiently proved that the deceased was serving as a Branch Manager in Life Insurance Corporation of India and his salary at the time of his death was Rs. 17,379/per month. Learned Tribunal has hypothetically raised the salary of the deceased to Rs. 27,000/per month, that is, addition of Rs. 9,621/has been made. While making this addition, learned Tribunal has relied upon evidence showing that deceased would have earned four promotions had he lived. Learned Tribunal, however, while making the addition of Rs. 9,621/in the monthly income of the deceased has not followed any principle and can be said to have acted illogically. In Sarla Verma, Supreme Court after taking into consideration various case law on the point has laid down that where the deceased had a permanent job and his age was 40 to 50 years, the addition should be only 30 per cent. What is laid as a thumb rule by the Supreme Court can be discerned from para 11 of the judgment: 11.. 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 ]. [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. Where the deceased was selfemployed 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. 16. Record on the file of the Tribunal would show that no evidence/material to show that income of the deceased as at the time of death was within taxable limit or how much income tax used to be paid by the deceased and given that his gross annual salary was around two lakh rupees, it can be safely said that he should be paying no tax. Without deducting anything towards income tax, an addition of 30 per cent, that is, 5,214/(30 per cent of 17,379/) only should have been made to the actual salary/income. Salary of the deceased for the purpose of determining the compensation is, therefore, taken as Rs. 22,593/(17379+5214) say 22,600/and not Rs. 27,000/as taken by the Tribunal. 17. Deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is governed by the number of the dependents/claimants. In Sarla Verma rule laid down by the Supreme Court is that deduction should be oneforth where number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. Their Lordships in para-14 have said: 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. Their Lordships in para-14 have said: 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 onethird (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. 18. Number of dependent members in this case is four. Permissible deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, therefore, would be Rs. 5,650/(one-forth of Rs. 22,600/) per month and not Rs.6,750/as taken by the learned Tribunal. Monthly contribution of the deceased towards the claimants therefore, comes as Rs. 16,950/(22600-5650) and not Rs. 20,250/as ascertained by the ld. Tribunal. The annual contribution of the deceased towards claimants comes as 2,03,400/(16950x12) and not Rs. 2,43,000/as calculated by the learned Tribunal. Selection of multiplier 19. Multiplier is to be selected and applied on the basis of the age of the deceased from column 4 of the table given in para 19 in Sarla Verma s case. Deceased was 43 to be bracketed in the age group of 41 to 45 years. Learned Tribunal for selection of multiplier has relied upon second schedule to the Act, selected the multiplier of 15 and scaled it down to 13. Multiplier, however, should have been selected from column 4 (supra) as this is the mandate of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma s case. 20. Multiplier applicable to the age group of 41 to 45 as per column 4 supra is 14. Having regard to the number of the dependents/claimants and their young age on one side and uncertainties of the life on the other side, minor scaling down of the multiplier would be justified in this case. Multiplier, therefore, is scaled down to 13. Compensation payable under the head loss of dependency, therefore, arrives as as Rs. 26,44,200/(203400 x13) and not 31,69,000/as calculated by the learned Tribunal. 21. Multiplier, therefore, is scaled down to 13. Compensation payable under the head loss of dependency, therefore, arrives as as Rs. 26,44,200/(203400 x13) and not 31,69,000/as calculated by the learned Tribunal. 21. As per the mandate in Sarla Verma, compensation payable to the wife of the deceased as loss of consortium would be Rs. 10,000/and that payable towards funeral expenses would be Rs. 5,000/. Compensation awarded under these two heads by the Tribunal is reduced accordingly. No compensation for last rites is permissible so compensation of Rs. 20,000/awarded by the learned Tribunal under this head is set aside. However, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 5,000/under the head loss to estate, which the Tribunal has not awarded and is awarded herby. 22 In the result the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly and the compensation now payable is as under: 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 26, 44,200/ 2. Lost of consortium Rs. 10,000/ 3. Loss to Estate Rs. 5,000/ 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/ Total Rs. 26,64,200/ 23. Order/Award modified accordingly and appeal disposed of. 24. Record of the Tribunal be sent forthwith.