Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 179 (CAL)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nikhil Mondal

2014-03-04

J.K.BISWAS, SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI

body2014
JUDGMENT : J.K. Biswas, J. 1. The insurance company is the appellant. It is aggrieved by an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nadia dated 19.8.2005 in M.A.C.C. No. 233 of 2003. The parents of a 24-year-old bachelor victim killed in a motor vehicle accident on 12.2.2003 filed the application for compensation. They claimed fault liability compensation. The Claims Tribunal granted compensation choosing the multiplier 17 referring to the victim's age and deducting one-third towards the victim's personal and living expenses. 2. Mr. Das leading Mr. Roy appearing for the insurance company has submitted as follows: In view of the position of law existing on the date of the award, the Claims Tribunal ought to have chosen the multiplier referring to the age of the unmarried victim's mother and deducted 50 percent from the victim's income towards his personal and living expenses. 3. Mr. Mondal appearing for the claimants has defended the award saying that the decisions he is armed with will show that the law was not what the insurance company says it was. 4. Quite a few decisions have been cited to us and we propose to deal with them in their chronological order. 5. The first decision is U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , cited by Mr. Das. It is a three-Judge Bench decision given on 7.5.1996. In that case the Apex Court was deciding the question of "the use of the correct multiplier for determination of compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives of a victim of a road accident". 6. The Supreme Court said, "The Tribunals and High Courts have adopted divergent methods to determine the suitable multiplier. Even this court has not been uniform; maybe because the principle on which this method came to be evolved has been forgotten. It has, therefore, become necessary to examine the law and to state the correct principles to be adopted". 7. From para 15 of the report, it appears that the Supreme Court was reiterating the method of working out just compensation, because the courts and Tribunals, instead of determining 'just' compensation applying the multiplier method, were applying a hybrid method based on their subjectivity. 8. 7. From para 15 of the report, it appears that the Supreme Court was reiterating the method of working out just compensation, because the courts and Tribunals, instead of determining 'just' compensation applying the multiplier method, were applying a hybrid method based on their subjectivity. 8. The principle applicable to a claim arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor was stated in para 18 of the report and it is as follows: "(18) ...Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of multiplier." 9. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , the Apex Court quoted the following principle from General Manager, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : "The choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants, whichever is higher)". The Apex Court directed that a copy of Trilok Chandra decision should be sent to all the High Courts with a direction to circulate it to the courts and Tribunals dealing with motor accident claims cases. 10. The second decision is Fakeerappa and Another Vs. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 473 , cited by Mr. Banerjee interested in a case involving the deduction issue. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 13.2.2004. The parents of the bachelor victim were the claimants. The Claims Tribunal deducted 50 percent for personal expenses. Deduction was one of the issues before the Supreme Court. 11. While, on the facts of the case, ordering one-third deduction, the Supreme Court said as follows: "(7) What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an overall view the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction." 12. The third decision is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. The deceased undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the insurer is that after marriage, the contribution to the parents would have been lesser and, therefore, taking an overall view the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the deduction." 12. The third decision is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 720 , cited by Mr. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 29.3.2005. As to multiplier and deduction the Apex Court said: "The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher)" and "what would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula by universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case". 13. The fourth decision is New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 1 , cited by Mr. Kamal K. Das. It is a three-Judge Bench decision given on 10.7.2007. It was contended that the multiplier ought to have been chosen on the basis of the age of the claimants, not of the victim. Accepting the contention, the court chose the multiplier on the basis of the age of the mother of the victim, i.e., 65. The victim was 25 and his father was more than 65. 14. The fifth decision is Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 512 , cited by Mr. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 17.9.2007. As to choice of multiplier, there the Supreme Court said, "In cases, where parents are the claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents". 15. The sixth decision is Ramesh Singh and Another Vs. Satbir Singh and Another, (2008) 2 SCC 66, cited by Mr. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 21.1.2008. It was a section 163-A claim by the parents of a 22-year-old victim. The question was whose age should be the basis for choosing the multiplier. Referring to U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 512 , the Apex Court said that in view of the law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Referring to U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 512 , the Apex Court said that in view of the law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, (2007) 10 SCC 1 , the multiplier should be "determined by the age of the deceased or the claimants whichever is higher". 16. The seventh decision is Bilkish Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2008) 4 SCC 259 , cited by Mr. Banerjee. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 12.3.2008. It was a fault liability claim case and the parents of the bachelor victim were the claimants. One of the questions was whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in deducting 50 percent towards the victim's personal and living expenses. 17. Their Lordships said and held: "(4) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court and Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore, determining the loss of dependency by 50 percent was not correct. Therefore, we assess that he must be spending 73rd towards personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family." 18. The eighth decision is Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, (2009) 2 SCC 225 , cited by Mr. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 6.1.2009. It was a fault liability claim case filed by the parents and three sisters of a 20-year-old bachelor victim. The Claims Tribunal granting compensation deducted 50 percent from the victim's income towards his personal and living expenses. It was contended that the deduction should have been one-third. 19. The Supreme Court upheld the 50 percent deduction saying as follows: "(18) On the question of deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased, there is no set formula which would be applied in every case to determine as to what should be the deduction on this account. It was contended that the deduction should have been one-third. 19. The Supreme Court upheld the 50 percent deduction saying as follows: "(18) On the question of deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased, there is no set formula which would be applied in every case to determine as to what should be the deduction on this account. The contention that deduction on that count cannot exceed one-third on the ground that there is some statutory recognition in the Second Schedule to the Act for such deduction, is untenable. The said deduction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, no evidence was led on this point as well. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income in case he was married and one-half (50 percent) if he was a bachelor." 20. The ninth decision is Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , cited by Mr. Mondal. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 15.4.2009. Mr. Mondal has submitted that in view of Sarla Verma (supra), in every fault liability claim case, irrespective of whether the victim was a bachelor or not, the multiplier mentioned in column 4 of the Table given in the decision is to be chosen on the basis of the victim's age. 21. Dealing with Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Mr. Das has submitted as follows: "It was not a case of a bachelor victim. How the multiplier should be chosen in a claim case arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor was not an issue in the case. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , was the case in which choice of multiplier was the sole issue and in that case the principle applicable to a claim arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor was clearly stated. Hence it cannot be said that multiplier mentioned in the Table given in Sarla Verma (supra) by implication would apply also to a claim case where the bachelor victim's old dependants are the claimants. Hence it cannot be said that multiplier mentioned in the Table given in Sarla Verma (supra) by implication would apply also to a claim case where the bachelor victim's old dependants are the claimants. That in such a case multiplier should be chosen on the basis of the age of the younger between the old dependants, reiterated in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 1 ; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 512 and Ramesh Singh and Another Vs. Satbir Singh and Another, (2008) 2 SCC 667 , was not considered in Sarla Verma." 22. Mr. K.K. Das has, however, strongly relied on Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , in support of his contention that in a claim case arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor the general rule is to deduct 50 percent towards the victim's personal and living expenses. He has relied on para 15 of the report. Para 15 of Sarla Verma report is quoted below: "(15) Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelor, normally, 50 percent 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 parents 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. 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 percent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 percent 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 percent would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 percent 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." 23. In para 25 of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Supreme Court, however, said, "We agree with the contention that the deduction on account of personal and living expenses cannot be at a fixed one-third in all cases (unless the calculation is under section 163-A read with Second Schedule to the M.V. Act)". 24. The tenth decision is Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2011) ACJ 15, cited by Mr. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 9.11.2010. There the bachelor victim was 22 and his parents were the claimants. It was a claim for fault liability compensation. Choice of multiplier was one of the issues. Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , was considered and the Table given therein was reproduced. 25. After saying that multipliers mentioned in column 4 of the Table would be applicable to fault liability claim cases, the Supreme Court specifically dealt with the question of choice of multiplier in a claim case arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor and reiterated the principle stated in Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim and Ramesh Singh. 26. In para 12 of the report the Supreme Court said: "(12) ...Insofar as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied keeping in view the age of the deceased. The argument is devoid of any substance. 26. In para 12 of the report the Supreme Court said: "(12) ...Insofar as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied keeping in view the age of the deceased. The argument is devoid of any substance. In a case where the age of the claimant is higher than the age of the deceased, the age of the claimant and not the age of the deceased has to be taken into account for the capitalisation of the lost dependency. It is so because the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher." 27. The eleventh decision is Mohd. Ameeruddin and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2011) 1 SCC(Cri) 862, cited by Mr. Banerjee. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 18.11.2010. The parents of a 20-year-old bachelor victim were the claimants. It was a fault liability claim case and the Claims Tribunal granted compensation applying the one-third deduction principle. The deduction issue did not arise in the Supreme Court. 28. The twelfth decision is P.S. Somanathan and Others Vs. District Insurance Officer and Another, (2011) 3 SCC 566 , cited by Mr. J. Mondal. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 17.2.2011. It was a fault liability claim case. The parents and a sister of a 33-year-old bachelor victim were the claimants. Principle stated in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and two other subsequent decisions that choice of multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is higher was noticed. 29. Saying that Table in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , was given after considering Trilok Chandra, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, (2007) 10 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to ascertain the correct ratio of Sarla Verma (supra), and that the compensation ought to have been computed choosing the multiplier on the basis of the age of the victim. 30. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, (2007) 10 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to ascertain the correct ratio of Sarla Verma (supra), and that the compensation ought to have been computed choosing the multiplier on the basis of the age of the victim. 30. The thirteenth decision is National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shyam Singh and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 65 , cited by Mr. K.K. Das. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 4.7.2011. In that case the bachelor victim was 19. It was a fault liability claim case. The victim's parents were the claimants. The question was whose age was to be the basis for choosing the multiplier. 31. Relying on Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the High Court substituted the multiplier 18 for 8 chosen by the Claims Tribunal. The contention was that the High Court failed to ascertain the correct ratio of Sarla Verma. Accepting the contention, the Supreme Court held, "The Tribunal had rightfully applied the multiplier of 8 by taking the average of the parents of the deceased who were 55 and 56 years". 32. The fourteenth decision is Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 11 SCC 738 , cited by Mr. Mondal. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 4.4.2012. It was a fault liability claim case and the bachelor victim's parents and a sister were the claimants. 33. Both the questions of choice of multiplier and deduction for personal and living expenses were in issue in that case. The Sarla Verma principle that deduction should be 50 percent in the case of a bachelor victim was reiterated. As to multiplier, column 4 of the Table given in Sarla Verma was referred to, and it was held that multiplier should be chosen on the basis of the age of victim, not of the dependant. 34. Para 17 of the report is quoted below: "(17) The selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation." 35. The fifteenth decision is Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation." 35. The fifteenth decision is Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 , cited by Mr. Mondal. It is a three-Judge Bench decision given on 2.4.2013. It was a reference made by a two-Judge Bench. The questions were: "(1) Whether multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the 1988 Act') should be scrupulously applied in all cases? and (2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospects." 36. Para 40 of the report is quoted below: "(40) In what we have discussed above, we sum up our conclusions as follows: (i) In the applications for compensation made under section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in column 4 of the Table prepared in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , read with para 21 of that judgment. (ii) In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years, irrespective of section 166 or section 163-A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in column 6 of the Table in Sarla Verma should be followed. (iii) As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule to the 1988 Act. (iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 9 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in cases of death. (v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow para 11 of the judgment in Sarla Verma. (iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 9 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in cases of death. (v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow para 11 of the judgment in Sarla Verma. (vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment in Sarla Verma subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above. (vii) The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration." 37. Relying on Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 , Mr. Mondal has forcefully argued that in every fault liability claim case, irrespective of whether the victim was a bachelor or not, the applicable multiplier is to be chosen only on the basis of the age of the victim mentioned in the Table given in Sarla Verma, categorically approved by the larger Bench in Reshma Kumari. 38. In reply Mr. K.K. Das has forcefully argued that the question of choice of multiplier in a fault liability claim case arising out of the accidental death of a bachelor was not an issue either in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 or in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 ) and that Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari ratios are not different from the ratio of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , in which the question of choice of multiplier in a fault liability claim case was the only issue. 39. The sixteenth decision is M. Mansoor and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Another, (2013) ACJ 2849, cited by Mr. Mondal. It is a two-Judge Bench decision given on 3.10.2013. It was a fault liability claim case. The victim was a 24-year-old bachelor and his parents were the claimants. The contention was that in view of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the High Court ought to have chosen the multiplier 18 on the basis of the victim's age. The contention was accepted. 40. The victim was a 24-year-old bachelor and his parents were the claimants. The contention was that in view of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the High Court ought to have chosen the multiplier 18 on the basis of the victim's age. The contention was accepted. 40. Para 15 of the report is quoted below: "(15) The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and the High Court determined the multiplier as 12 on the basis of the age of the parents/claimants. This court in the decision in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 11 SCC 738 , held as follows: '(17) The selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependant. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation'." 41. The seventeenth to twenty-second decisions are the six Division Bench decisions of this court dealing with the issues arising in the cases concerned. While Mr. Das has, inter alia, relied on Renuka Sen and Another Vs. Jagdish Pandey and Another, (2013) ACJ 2670, Mr. Mondal has strongly relied on the decision in Bidyut Maity v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., F.M.A. No. 1325 of 2012; decided on 2.12.2013 (Calcutta). 42. It is, therefore, to be examined as to whether the multiplier choice principle stated in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 and then clearly stated in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and then consistently stated in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, ; New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Pathak and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 1 ; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 512 and Ramesh Singh and Another Vs. Satbir Singh and Another, (2008) 2 SCC 667 , that the choice of multiplier is to be determined by the age of the victim or that of the claimant, whichever is higher, changed because of the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Satbir Singh and Another, (2008) 2 SCC 667 , that the choice of multiplier is to be determined by the age of the victim or that of the claimant, whichever is higher, changed because of the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 43. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , use of the correct multiplier for determination of compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives of the victim of a road accident was the only issue and the Supreme Court held that the selection of multiplier would not in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the victim and that in a claim case by the parents of a bachelor victim the ages of the parents would also be relevant for the purpose. 44. In Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the wife, three minor children, parents and grandfather of the victim claimed fault liability compensation. The Claims Tribunal chose the multiplier 22 on the ground that the lost period of service of the employed victim was 22 years. The High Court chose multiplier 13 on the basis of the victim's age. In the Supreme Court the claimants contended that in view of the Second Schedule to the Act multiplier 16 was applicable. 45. While deciding the question of choice of multiplier applicable to the case, the Supreme Court referred to General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 ; section 163-A of the Act; the Second Schedule to the Act; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 ; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and prepared a Table specifying the multipliers 'envisaged in Susamma Thomas', 'adopted by Trilok Chandra'', 'clarified in Charlie', 'specified' in the Second Schedule, and the ones 'actually used' in Second Schedule. 46. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 ; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and prepared a Table specifying the multipliers 'envisaged in Susamma Thomas', 'adopted by Trilok Chandra'', 'clarified in Charlie', 'specified' in the Second Schedule, and the ones 'actually used' in Second Schedule. 46. In para 20 of Sarla Verma's case the Supreme Court said that while some Tribunals and courts were following the multiplier envisaged in Susamma Thomas, some were following the multipliers adopted by Trilok Chandra, some were following the multipliers clarified in Charlie, many were following the multipliers specified in the Second Schedule and some were following the multipliers actually used in the Second Schedule. 47. The Apex Court gave an example saying, "If the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie or 16 as per the multiplier given in column 2 of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act. 48. After saying that some Tribunals, as was in the case the Supreme Court was deciding, were even applying "the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to retiring age", the Supreme Court said, "It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and not under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. In cases falling under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Davies' method [(1942) AC 601] is applicable". 49. We are concerned with cases falling under section 166 and not under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. In cases falling under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Davies' method [(1942) AC 601] is applicable". 49. Saying that there was inconsistency, and that it was necessary to avoid it, in para 21 of the report the Supreme Court said as follows: "(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." 50. It is, therefore, evident that in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , what the Supreme Court was actually deciding was which multiplier was applicable to the case and when the Supreme Court noticed the existing inconsistencies because of several operative multipliers almost for all the age groups mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Act, it thought it necessary to direct that only one set of multipliers mentioned in column 4 of the Table given in the decision should be applied to all fault liability claim cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 51. The Apex Court said that because of the existing inconsistencies to a case arising out of the death of a 38-year-old victim, the multipliers 12, 14, 15, 16 and 22 were in operation. With a view to removing this evident inconsistency the Apex Court directed all to follow one set of multipliers mentioned in column 4 of the Table and according to the Table, the multiplier 15 was applicable to Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , because the victim was 38 and the Apex Court applied the multiplier 15 to the case. 52. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , because the victim was 38 and the Apex Court applied the multiplier 15 to the case. 52. It is, therefore, not correct to say that in Sarla Verma, the Supreme Court explained or clarified the above noted choice of multiplier principle stated in its previous decisions in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra, Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim and Ramesh Singh. Sarla Verma principle stating which multiplier should be applied to which age group had no connection whatsoever with the choice of the correct multiplier. 53. The first step in the multiplier choice has nothing to do with the several age groups given in the Second Schedule to the Act and in the Table given in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ; for the first multiplier choice step is entirely connected with the age of the victim or the age of the claimant, whichever is higher and there is no reason to say that any principle stated in Sarla Verma caused any change to this principle clearly and specifically stated, reiterated and laid down in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 . 54. It is to be noted that Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , is a two-Judge Bench decision; as noted hereinbefore, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , is a three-Judge Bench decision. Sarla Verma principle applies to the second multiplier choice step, i.e., the principle is to be applied only after ascertaining the age for choosing the multiplier. Once the age is determined, in view of Sarla Verma the multiplier is to be chosen following the age group mentioned in the Table given therein. 55. The problem, however, has arisen because of the decisions of the Apex Court in P.S. Somanathan, Amrit Bhanu Shali and M. Mansoor. It is to be noted that in the decisions given by the Apex Court after Sarla Verma in Shakti Devi, P.S. Somanathan, Shyam Singh, Amrit Bhanu Shali and M. Mansoor the question of choice of multiplier was decided as an issue. 56. In Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Co. It is to be noted that in the decisions given by the Apex Court after Sarla Verma in Shakti Devi, P.S. Somanathan, Shyam Singh, Amrit Bhanu Shali and M. Mansoor the question of choice of multiplier was decided as an issue. 56. In Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2011) ACJ 15 --the first after Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 --the parents of a 22-year-old bachelor victim filed the application claiming fault liability compensation. The Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier 8. The High Court did not interfere. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the choice of multiplier was wrong. The Apex Court held that the multiplier specified in column 4 of the Table given in Sarla Verma was applicable. 57. As to the question of choice of multiplier, the Supreme Court said and held as follows: "(12) ...Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, Tribunal applied the multiplier of 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the multiplier of 18 should have been applied keeping in view the age of the deceased. The argument is devoid of any substance. In a case where the age of the claimant is higher than the age of the deceased, the age of the claimant and not the age of the deceased has to be taken into account for the capitalisation of the lost dependency. It is so because the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher." After reiterating the above noted principle and holding that on the date of accident Shakti Devi (the victim's mother) was about 54-55, the Supreme Court chose the multiplier 11 specified in the column 4 of Sarla Verma Table. 58. It is in P.S. Somanathan and Others Vs. District Insurance Officer and Another, (2011) 3 SCC 566 --the second after Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 --that the Supreme Court took a different view for the first time. There the bachelor victim was 33 and his mother was one of the claimants applying for fault liability compensation. The Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier 16. The High Court chose multiplier 5 as the victim's mother was 67. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 --that the Supreme Court took a different view for the first time. There the bachelor victim was 33 and his mother was one of the claimants applying for fault liability compensation. The Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier 16. The High Court chose multiplier 5 as the victim's mother was 67. The Supreme Court said "the High Court should have proceeded to compute the compensation on the age of the deceased". 59. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shyam Singh and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 65 --the third after Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 --the parents of a 19-year-old bachelor victim filed the application claiming fault liability compensation. Considering the parents' ages (56 and 55), the Claims Tribunal applied the multiplier 8. Following Sarla Verma, the High Court applied 18. Accepting the contention that the High Court failed to correctly apply the Sarla Verma ratio, the Supreme Court held that the Claims Tribunal had correctly applied the multiplier 8. 60. Then in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 11 SCC 738 ---the fourth after Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 --the Apex Court again took a view contrary to the view taken in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra, Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim, Ramesh Singh, Shakti Devi and Shyam Singh. 61. In Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 11 SCC 738 , the parents and a sister of a 26-year-old bachelor victim applied for fault liability compensation. Following Sarla Verma the Claims Tribunal chose the multiplier 17 referring to the victim's age. The High Court, also following Sarla Verma, however, chose multiplier 13 referring to the victim's age. One contention before the Apex Court was that choice of multiplier 13 was against the law laid down in Sarla Verma. 62. The Supreme Court holding that in view of Sarla Verma the multiplier 17 ought to have been chosen on the basis of the victim's age said as follows: "(17) The selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. 62. The Supreme Court holding that in view of Sarla Verma the multiplier 17 ought to have been chosen on the basis of the victim's age said as follows: "(17) The selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation." 63. M. Mansoor and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Another, (2013) ACJ 2849 --the fifth and the last after Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, --is yet another decision of the Supreme Court taking a view contrary to the one consistently stated by the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra, Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim, Ramesh Singh, Shakti Devi and Shyam Singh. In fact, M. Mansoor was given following Amrit Bhanu Shali and quoting para 17 of its report. In M. Mansoor, the High Court chose the multiplier 12 referring to the age of the parents of the 24-year-old bachelor victim. 64. In para 16 of M. Mansoor and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Another, (2013) ACJ 2849, the Supreme Court said as follows: "(16) In the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 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 death was 24 years, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. The Claims Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 and the High Court committed a serious error by bringing it down to the multiplier of 12." 65. Thus, the question that emerges is whether in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Supreme Court said anything concerning the principle that the multiplier applicable to a claim case filed in a Claims Tribunal is to be chosen referring to the age of the victim or that of the claimant, whichever is higher. 66. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Supreme Court said anything concerning the principle that the multiplier applicable to a claim case filed in a Claims Tribunal is to be chosen referring to the age of the victim or that of the claimant, whichever is higher. 66. As already noted hereinbefore, this was not even an issue in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , in which while determining the multiplier applicable to that case the Supreme Court noticed that even to a claim case arising out of the death of a 38-year-old victim as many as 4 multipliers could be chosen. The Apex Court very specifically stated that it thought it necessary to remove this inconsistency and consequently it prepared the Table and directed that the multipliers specified in column 4 of the Table would be followed in all cases. 67. It is evident that nothing in Sarla Verma even explained or clarified the principle on choice of multiplier indicated in Susamma Thomas, specifically reiterated in Trilok Chandra (for the reasons stated therein) and consistently stated thereafter in Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim and Ramesh Singh. In Shakti Devi and Shyam Singh the Supreme Court sufficiently indicated that nothing in Sarla Verma changed that position of law. 68. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the principle stated in P.S. Somanathan, Amrit Bhanu Shall and M. Mansoor does not emerge from Sarla Verma and that it is fully in conflict with the principle stated in Susamma Thomas, specifically reiterated in Trilok Chandra and then repeatedly stated in Charlie, Shanti Pathak, Syed Ibrahim and Ramesh Singh. Shakti Devi and Shyam Singh also support this view. 69. Hence we find that as to choice of multiplier the law of the land always was and still is: It should be chosen referring to the victim's age or the age of the claimant, whichever is higher. 70. Since after considering the decisions of the Supreme Court cited to us we have reached the foregoing conclusion, we do not think it is necessary to deal with the six Division Bench decisions of this court also cited to us. 71. We only say that while we agree with the view taken in Renuka Sen and Another Vs. 70. Since after considering the decisions of the Supreme Court cited to us we have reached the foregoing conclusion, we do not think it is necessary to deal with the six Division Bench decisions of this court also cited to us. 71. We only say that while we agree with the view taken in Renuka Sen and Another Vs. Jagdish Pandey and Another, (2013) ACJ 2670, we are unable to agree with the view taken in Bidyut Maity; for it is not based on the correct Sarla Verma ratio and is in conflict with the law on choice of multiplier based on age specifically laid down in Trilok Chandra. 72. As to the deduction issue, the consistent view of the Supreme Court stated in Fakeerappa, Charlie, Syed Basheer Ahamed, Sarla Verma, Shakti Devi and Reshma Kumari is as follows: "What will be the percentage of deduction for personal and living expenses cannot be decided by any rigid rule or formula of universal application. It will depend upon the circumstances of each case. The general practice is to deduct from one-third to half. Where the victim was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. Normally 50 percent is deducted. But it is always a matter of evidence. If evidence proves that the victim left a large number of dependants, then the deduction should be restricted to one-third." 73. We, therefore, hold that the Claims Tribunal erred in law by choosing the multiplier 17 referring to the bachelor victim's age and deducting one-third, when there was no evidence of a larger contribution. It ought to have chosen the multiplier referring to the age of the victim's mother, because his parents were the claimants; and deducted 50 percent from his monthly income of Rs. 3,000. 74. The victim's father had testified in the Claims Tribunal as PW 1 and it was recorded that on 20.5.2005 he was 52. The victim's mother verifying the claim application did not give her age. She did not testify. Hence it is not known between the parents who was younger. In view of the principle stated hereinbefore, the younger parent's age was to be the basis for choosing the multiplier. 75. Faced with the situation, Mr. Mondal has prayed for leave to file an affidavit producing therewith evidence of the age of the victim's mother. She did not testify. Hence it is not known between the parents who was younger. In view of the principle stated hereinbefore, the younger parent's age was to be the basis for choosing the multiplier. 75. Faced with the situation, Mr. Mondal has prayed for leave to file an affidavit producing therewith evidence of the age of the victim's mother. We think instead of remanding the case to the Claims Tribunal for taking down evidence for ascertaining the age of the victim's mother, it will be appropriate to grant the claimants leave to adduce additional evidence in proof of the age of the victim's mother on the date of the accident. 76. For these reasons, we allow the appeal without costs and order as follows: The award of the Claims Tribunal shall stand modified according to the calculation to be made next day. List for calculation and further order on 4.3.2014. Certified photocopy. Order on 4.3.2014: 77. The appeal of the insurance company was allowed on 24.2.2014; but the ordering part of the judgment could not be completed, because Mr. Mondal appearing for the claimants prayed for leave to file an affidavit producing evidence of the age of the victim's mother. 78. It was held that the Claims Tribunal ought to have chosen the multiplier referring to the age of the victim's mother, not the victim's age. 79. Thereafter the claimants have filed an affidavit dated 27.2.2004 producing therewith a photocopy of the ration card of the victim's mother. Mr. Mondal has submitted that in the ration card issued in 1995 the age of the victim's mother was recorded as 25. 80. The question is whether the woman's age recorded in the ration card can be accepted as the reliable evidence of her age. 81. The claimants' bachelor son died on 12.2.2003 and on that date he was 24. This was mentioned also in the post-mortem report. If his mother's age was 25 in 1995, then on 12.2.2003 she was around 33. This means that on the date of accident while her son was 24, she was around 33. This is simply unbelievable. Hence we are unable to accept the woman's ration card age as her real age. 82. We have given the claimants sufficient opportunity to give reliable evidence of the age of the victim's mother so that the appropriate multiplier could be chosen. This is simply unbelievable. Hence we are unable to accept the woman's ration card age as her real age. 82. We have given the claimants sufficient opportunity to give reliable evidence of the age of the victim's mother so that the appropriate multiplier could be chosen. Since the claimants have not given any reliable evidence of her age, we think it will be appropriate to choose the multiplier on the basis of the age of the victim's father recorded in his deposition on the basis of his own statement. 83. He testified as PW 1 and in his deposition his age was recorded as 52 on 20.5.2005. This means that on the date of accident he was 49-odd. We think it will be appropriate to choose the multiplier on the basis of his age. Hence we hold that in view of the Sarla Verma Table the multiplier 13 will apply to the case. We, therefore, hold that the claimants were and are entitled to Rs. 3,000 (victim's monthly income) - Rs. 1,500 (50 percent towards the bachelor victim's personal and living expenses) = Rs. 1,500 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 2,34,000 + Rs. 2,000 (funeral expenses) + Rs. 2,500 (loss to estate) = Rs. 2,38,500 + 7.5 percent per annum interest on Rs. 2,38,500 from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.