JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed by the 3rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No. 3316/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. It is a claim petition filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition was filed by one Shaji s/o Thankappan. Pending the claim petition, Shaji died and his legal heirs are impleaded as petitioners 2 to 5. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The short facts are like this : On 27.10.2004 at about 7.30 pm, the deceased 1st petitioner, a pedestrian was knocked down by a goods carrier autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-8/S 4758 driven by the 2nd respondent. He sustained serious injuries and he was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, and was treated as an inpatient in the hospital. Subsequently, he filed the claim petition claiming compensation for his personal injuries sustained in the accident. Pending the claim petition, he died on 16.4.2011. Thereafter, his legal heirs were impleaded as petitioners 2 to 5 before the Tribunal. 3. To substantiate the case, Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the petitioners. One witness was examined on the side of the petitioners as PW1. Ext.X1 is the case record. After going through the evidence and the documents, the Tribunal found that the petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,48,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. While assessing the disability compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the 20% whole body disability of the deceased 1st petitioner. He was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and hence the multiplier “15” was taken by the tribunal for assessing the disability compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. 4. Heard the counsel for the 3rd respondent and the counsel for the petitioners. 5. An interesting point is raised by the senior counsel, who appeared for the 3rd respondent. He submitted that the accident, in this case, occurred on 27.10.2004. The claim petition was filed in the year 2004 itself. Pending the claim petition, the injured who was the original claimant died on 16.4.2011 and admittedly the death was not connected to the injury sustained to him in the accident. He submitted that the accident, in this case, occurred on 27.10.2004. The claim petition was filed in the year 2004 itself. Pending the claim petition, the injured who was the original claimant died on 16.4.2011 and admittedly the death was not connected to the injury sustained to him in the accident. Subsequently, his legal heirs were impleaded. The Tribunal while assessing the disability compensation, the multiplier 15' is taken based on the age of the injured as on the date of the accident. The senior counsel submitted that the applicable multiplier is 7', because, the original petitioner who is the injured died on 16.11.2011. Hence, the Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier as 15' instead of 7'. 6. The counsel for the petitioners seriously opposed the above argument. The counsel submitted that the Tribunal has correctly taken the multiplier as 15'. According to the counsel, the multiplier is to be adopted based on the age of the injured as on the date of the accident. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court which is reported in Kirti & Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [CDJ (2021) SC 8]. The counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another [ 2010 (2) KLT 802 ]. The counsel argued that the Tribunal ought to have considered the claim petition based on the situation as on the date of the accident or date of the claim petition. He submitted that the multiplier that is applicable in the case of the petitioner is admittedly 15' as per Sarla Verma's case. Simply because, the injured died subsequently, this Court may not change the multiplier. 7. The short point to be decided is whether the multiplier can be changed based on the death of the injured after the accident due to some other reasons or whether we should adopt the uniform multiplier that is applicable as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra). 8. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), the Apex Court for uniformity and consistency, directed the Tribunal to determine the compensation in case of deaths, by following certain steps. Paragraph 19 of the Sarla Verma's case (supra) is extracted hereunder : “19. 8. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), the Apex Court for uniformity and consistency, directed the Tribunal to determine the compensation in case of deaths, by following certain steps. Paragraph 19 of the Sarla Verma's case (supra) is extracted hereunder : “19. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled-steps: Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) 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 has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.” As per step 2, the multiplier is to be ascertained. Step 2 clearly says that having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. Indeed, this does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked, but for the accident. Step 2 clearly says that having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. Indeed, this does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked, but for the accident. The Apex Court observed that having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by the Court. The Apex Court observed that the multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. 9. The multiplier fixed by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma' s case (supra) is extracted hereunder : Age of the deceased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas Multiplier scale as adopted by Trilok Chandra Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie Multiplier specified in Second Column in the Table in Second Schedule to the MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to the MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) Age of the deceased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas Multiplier scale as adopted by Trilok Chandra Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie Multiplier specified in Second Column in the Table in Second Schedule to the MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to the MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Upto 15 yrs - - - 15 20 15 to 20 yrs 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25 yrs 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30 yrs 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35 yrs 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40 yrs 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45 yrs 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50 yrs 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55 yrs 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60 yrs 8 10 09 8 8 61 to 65 yrs 6 08 07 5 6 Above 65 yrs 5 05 05 5 5 10. Thereafter, the Apex Court held like this : “41. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Thereafter, the Apex Court held like this : “41. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the Table in the Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the table above). For example 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 MV Act or 15 as per the multiplier actually adopted in the second Schedule to MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with cases falling under S.166 and not under S.163A of MV Act. In cases falling under S.166 of the MV Act, Davies method is applicable. 42. 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 M17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M11 for 51 to 55 years, M9 for 56 to 60 years, M7 for 61 to 65 years and M5 for 66 to 70 years.” 11. In the light of the above dictum laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra), it is clear that, one of the criteria for deciding the multiplier is the imponderables in life and also economic factors. It is a practical assessment arrived by the court and thereafter fixed the multiplier to the different age groups. It is true that for the age group of 15 to 20 years the multiplier prescribed in the above table is “18”. Whether the life expectancy of a person in the age group of 15 to 20 is 18 years more? This is answered by the apex court in step 2 of Para 19 of Sarala Varma’s case (supra). Having regard to several other imponderables in life and economic factors, the table of multipliers with reference to age has been identified by the apex Court. But, according to me, if a person died before that period due to some other reasons not connected to the accident and the claim petition filed for the compensation for personal injury sustained to him in the accident came up for consideration before the tribunal thereafter, the tribunal cannot mechanically adopt the multiplier used for the age group as held in Sarla Verma's case (supra) for assessing disability compensation. Each case has to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case. According to me, in such a situation, the Tribunal can take the actual years for which the injured lived from the date of the accident for deciding the multiplier. But if this is more than the multiplier prescribed in Sarala Varma’s Case (supra), then the multiplier used in Sarala Varma’s case should be taken as the multiplier. This court can’t prescribe a higher multiplier in violation of the table prescribed by the apex court in the above case. 12. The senior counsel who appeared before this Court for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent/petitioner fairly submitted, there are no precedents to the issue that arises in this case. A person sustained serious injuries in a motor accident and he sustained disability. He filed a claim petition for getting compensation. Subsequently, before the claim petition is decided finally by the tribunal, the injured died due to some other reasons not connected to the injury sustained by him in the accident. A person sustained serious injuries in a motor accident and he sustained disability. He filed a claim petition for getting compensation. Subsequently, before the claim petition is decided finally by the tribunal, the injured died due to some other reasons not connected to the injury sustained by him in the accident. The total years the injured lived after the accident is less than the multiplier prescribed in Sarla Verma’s case. In such situation, whether a multiplier prescribed in Sarla Verma's case (supra) can be adopted is the question. According to me, while assessing compensation for disability in such cases, the multiplier mentioned in Sarla Verma's case (supra) can't be adopted mechanically. Each case is to be considered separately and just compensation is to be paid taking into consideration all the relevant factors. 13. In this case, the original 1st petitioner sustained serious injuries on 27.10.2004. He filed a claim petition in 2004 itself as O.P.(M.V.) No. 3316/2004. Thereafter, the original 1st petitioner died due to some other reason on 16.4.2011. Therefore, the original 1st petitioner lived only for a period of 7 years after the accident. He was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and the multiplier applicable as per Sarla Verma's case is 15'. The claim petition came up for consideration on 19.4.2012. According to me, the multiplier which is prescribed in Sarla Verma's case (supra) is not applicable in this case for assessing disability compensation. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a multiplier of 7' can be taken while assessing the disability compensation. The petitioner sustained 20% whole body disability. If that is the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal for disability compensation is to be re-assessed in the following manner : 3000 x 12 x 7 x 20/100 = Rs.50,400/- 14. Even though the counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the amount awarded in the other heads is also excessive, according to me, the same is just and reasonable compensation. The senior counsel also submitted that there is no medical board certificate to prove disability and the Tribunal erred in relying on Ext.A8 without a medical board certificate. But, Ext.A8 is proved through PW1, the doctor who issued the same. Therefore, according to me, there is nothing to interfere with the other findings of the above award. Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part. (1) The impugned award is modified. But, Ext.A8 is proved through PW1, the doctor who issued the same. Therefore, according to me, there is nothing to interfere with the other findings of the above award. Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part. (1) The impugned award is modified. (2) The disability compensation awarded by the Tribunal as Rs.1,08,000/-is set aside and the petitioner is entitled only an amount of Rs.50,400/-. The above amount will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till realisation.