Delhi and so, in view of Supreme Court’s decision in Malati Sardar (supra) , the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. On perusal of evidence of eye-witness (PW-3), I find that there is no basis to conclude that this witness (PW-3) is planted. So far as application of multiplier is concerned, I find that Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 has clarified that the applicable multiplier for the age group of 46-50 is of 13, whereas for the age group of 51-55, it is of 11. Since deceased was aged about 50 years and 5 months on day of the accident, therefore, applicable multiplier would be of 12. In view of Supreme Court’s decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) , addition towards „future prospects‟ has to be 15%. 8. As per the salary slip (Ex.PW1/6) of deceased, he was granted Special Allowance of 10,700/-, which the Tribunal has excluded while assessing his monthly income. There is no basis to do so. While assessing the income of deceased, Special Allowance has to be taken into consideration as the deceased was getting it. Thus, the annual income of deceased is assessed as 3,22,800/- (`26,900/-p.m. X 12) and in view of Form-16 (Ex.PW2/24) on record, no tax is to be deducted due to investments made by deceased. Accordingly, the „loss of dependency‟ is reassessed as under: -
