JUDGMENT : Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Deceased Akhila Muddukuri was a Software Engineer in Oracle India Private Limited, Bangalore. She died in a motor accident on 12.03.2014. She was unmarried and was aged about 23 years. The claimants being parents and younger sister of the deceased (Respondents 1, 2 and 3) filed a claim petition u/S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,07,40,778/-. According to them, the deceased was earning Rs. 5,80,542/- per annum. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the Appellant, therefore, the Appellant was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It was held by the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,25,596.30 per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 and deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and finally awarded Rs. 47,30,366.70 towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 23,65,183.35 towards future prospects; Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate; Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation of dead-body from Gangtok to Hyderabad; Rs. 21,661/- towards expenses incurred for journey of Respondent No.1 and Rs. 25,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs. 71,79,711.05 as compensation to the claimants (Respondents 1, 2 and 3) on account of death of the deceased in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 15.05.2014 till realization. 2. Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, raised singular contention that the claimants were parents and younger sister, therefore, multiplier of 18 was not just and proper and the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 11 or 12 looking to the age of the parents, which were 51 and 48 on the date of incident. According to Mr. Bhutia, in cases where the claimants were parents, the multiplier would have been selected on the basis of age of the parents and not on the basis of age of the deceased. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Rathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants argued that after the judgment of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the age of the deceased was the important factor for choosing multiplier. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Rathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants argued that after the judgment of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the age of the deceased was the important factor for choosing multiplier. He argued that the Tribunal in this regard has strongly relied on the decision of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 11 SCC 738 and has chosen the multiplier of 18, which was just and proper. He also relied on various other decisions namely, Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and Another, 2013 (2) T.A.C. 369 (SC); M. Mansoor and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 (4) T.A.C. 832; Munna Lal Jain and Another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others, 2015 (6) SCC 347 and an earlier judgment of this Court in MAC App. No. 13 of 2014. 4. Mr. L.B. Gurung and Mr. Bhushan Nepal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 4 and 5, have simply supported the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Appellant. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties. 6. Mr. Bhutia, while arguing on multiplier, mainly referred to four decisions namely, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 ; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Others, (2002) 6 SCC 281 ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana (Smt.) and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 538 and Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 . He also relied on a decision of Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No. 5395 of 2006 (SB). His main contention was that decision of Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 giving the table of multiplier to be applied was not applicable to the cases where the claimants were only parents of the deceased. Therefore, in the cases where the parents were claimants, the Courts ought to have taken recourse to the decisions in Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , etc. and chosen the multiplier keeping in mind the age of the parents also. 7. In Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , it was held that the assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. and chosen the multiplier keeping in mind the age of the parents also. 7. In Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , it was held that the assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Further, the compensation awarded does not become "just compensation" merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profits. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and creakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation. Therefore, if different Tribunals calculate compensation differently on the same facts, the claimant, the litigant, the common man will be confused, perplexed and bewildered. If there is significant divergence among the Tribunals in determining the quantum of compensation on similar facts, it will lead to dissatisfaction and distrust in the system. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death i.e. (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. Further, the issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are: (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income of the deceased; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. 8. If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. 8. The Supreme Court then directed the Tribunals to determine the compensation in cases of death, by the following the well-settled steps i.e. Step 1 Ascertaining the multiplicand; Step 2 Ascertaining the multiplier and Step 3 Actual calculation. While discussing about Step 2 Ascertaining the multiplier, it was laid down that having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age was identified by the Supreme Court and it was directed that the multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. 9. We may note that while identifying the table of multipliers with reference to the age of the deceased, the Supreme Court had taken note of many earlier decisions including that of Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , on which heavy reliance was placed by Mr. Bhutia. The Supreme Court, while considering the question with reference to selection of multiplier, also considered the principles laid down in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 ; the contents of second schedule prepared u/S. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the principles laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and then only the table contained in paragraph 40 of the said Judgment was prepared. Ltd. v. Charlie and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and then only the table contained in paragraph 40 of the said Judgment was prepared. It was then held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table prepared by applying the above decisions i.e. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , 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. 10. Let us now look into other decisions, which came after the decision of Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 11. In Reshma Kumari, 2013 (2) T.A.C. 369 (SC), the Supreme Court, after hearing a reference on certain points, laid down the following conclusions:- (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 Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment. (ii) In cases where the age of the deceased is upto 15 years, irrespective of the Section 166 or Section 163A 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 in the 1988 Act. (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 in the 1988 Act. (iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in cases of death. (v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow paragraph 24 of the Judgment in Sarla Verma (supra). (vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) 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. 12. In M. Mansoor, the deceased was a bachelor aged about 24 years. A claim petition was filed by his parents u/S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court held that while computation of compensation, multiplier of 18 will apply in terms of decision in Sarla Verma case and it was held that the Tribunal and High Court committed serious error by applying multiplier of 17 and 12 respectively. 13. In Munna Lal Jain, the Appellants were the claimants. They were parents of deceased Satendra Kumar Jain, aged about 30 years, who died in a motor accident on 12.07.2008. He was self-employed as Pandit. He was a bachelor. The Supreme Court held that the claimants/parents of the deceased be awarded compensation on following principles: - (i) Deduction of 50% towards the personal and living expenses. (ii) Deceased was self employed if the deceased victim is below 40 years, there must be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. (iii) Multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased and not age of dependents of deceased in the case of the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years is 17. 14. In MAC App. No. 13/2014 a similar question was raised before the Single Judge of this Court. Incidentally, there also Mr. Bhutia was the counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company. 14. In MAC App. No. 13/2014 a similar question was raised before the Single Judge of this Court. Incidentally, there also Mr. Bhutia was the counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company. He cited many decisions in support of his contention. This Court after hearing elaborate arguments from both the sides, however, held that the question raised therein i.e. about the multiplier, was no more res integra. In view of the decision of Reshma Kumari rendered by a three-Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court, which has clarified this question on a reference made on the question by a two-Judges' Bench of that Court. I have already quoted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari. 15. Not only this, Sarla Verma was also followed in Puttamma and Others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another, AIR 2014 SC 706 , where the view taken by a three-Judges Bench in Reshma Kumari affirming Sarla Verma was noticed. In Puttamma, it was held that though the method of multiplier is one of the best methods in providing compensation, while choosing the multiplier the Court/Tribunal has to take into consideration the rising inflation, increasing salaries and increasing cost of living. Therefore, the Courts/Tribunals have to determine just compensation keeping in view the Indian background, the Indian culture, the Indian legal background, and the socio-cultural circumstances existing in India. It was further held that the multiplier shown in Column (4) of the table in Sarla Verma, therefore, must be used having regard to the age of the deceased. The biggest advantage by employing the table prepared in Sarla Verma was that the uniformity and consistency in selection of the multiplier could be achieved. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that a standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than the cross-cross of varying methods. It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses, and for all these reasons the Supreme Court approved the table in Sarla Verma for selection of multiplier in claim applications made u/S. 166 in the cases of death. 16. In Amrit Bhanu Shali, the Supreme Court by taking note of Sarla Verma held in paragraph 15, I quote: "15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. 16. In Amrit Bhanu Shali, the Supreme Court by taking note of Sarla Verma held in paragraph 15, I quote: "15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation." 17. In Kishan Gopal, referred to by Mr. Bhutia, the deceased was a boy, aged about 10 years and the claimants were his parents. His mother was aged about 36 years. The Supreme Court held that in the said case the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand by applying the legal principles laid down in Sarla Verma. 18. In view of all above decisions, it is thus clear that before the decision of Sarla Verma, there was inconsistency in determining the quantum of compensation and the principles in the said judgment were laid down with a view to remove the inconsistency and to bring the uniformity and consistency and thereafter, the multiplier identified in the table prepared in case of Sarla Verma is being consistently followed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. For these reasons, I respectfully disagree with the view taken by the Single Judge of Gujarat High Court. 19. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 23 years. I am of the view that the Tribunal, therefore, was right in choosing the multiplier of 18, which was identified in case of Sarla Verma and there appears to be no infirmity on the said aspect. C.O. No. 03 of 2015 20. Cross Objection, referred to above, has been filed by the claimants (Respondents 1, 2 and 3 herein). Though, many grounds were raised in the Cross Objection, but Mr. Rathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants, pressed only one ground i.e. the income of the deceased was not properly assessed. According to Mr. Rathi, the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs. 6.00 lakhs per annum to be the income of the deceased. Mr. Rathi has submitted that as per Exhibit-43 the income of the deceased was Rs. 6.00 lakhs per annum. 21. Mr. Bhutia has opposed the said argument. 22. I have gone through Exhibit-43. This is only an "offer of employment" issued to the deceased. 6.00 lakhs per annum to be the income of the deceased. Mr. Rathi has submitted that as per Exhibit-43 the income of the deceased was Rs. 6.00 lakhs per annum. 21. Mr. Bhutia has opposed the said argument. 22. I have gone through Exhibit-43. This is only an "offer of employment" issued to the deceased. The Tribunal, therefore, has not relied this document for the purpose of her income. The Tribunal has relied on Exhibit-45, pay-slip of the deceased for the month of February, 2014. The contents of the pay-slip (Exhibit- 45) would show that total earning of the deceased was Rs. 43,287.85 in the month of February, 2014. The Tribunal taking the said monthly income of the deceased has determined that her yearly income was Rs. 5,19,454.20. We find from paragraph 34 of the Award that in addition to the monthly income, the Tribunal has also added Travel Allowance of Rs. 18,792.10 making her income Rs. 5,38,246.30 per annum. By deducting income tax of Rs. 12,650/-, the annual income earned by the deceased was assessed at Rs. 5,25,596.30 and further calculations were made. It is needless to say that all above calculations are based on the documents filed by the claimants themselves; therefore, I do not find any scope for enhancement in the annual income assessed by the Tribunal in the above manner. The same is based on the documentary evidence filed by the claimants themselves. Conclusion: 23. For the forgoing reasons, the Appeal filed by the Insurer as also the Cross Objection filed by the Claimants, both are liable to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. There shall be no order as to cost(s).