has to be 50% of the monthly income in respect of a person below the age of 40. Obviously, in these cases, both the victims were aged only 19 years. Taking note of their age thus mentioned, the multiplier applied is 18 going by the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Based on our findings, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Mekala's case (supra), the appellants are entitled to get addition of 50% on the monthly income fixed notionally reckoning the future prospects they would have had, but for the untimely death. As noticed hereinbefore, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the victims as 12,000/- and the said fixation cannot be said to be too₹ inadequate warranting an upward modification. In the said circumstances, in the light of the decision in Mekala's case (supra) on the aforesaid notionally fixed monthly income addition taking into account the future prospects and subsequent deduction towards the personal expenses in the light of the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra), as applicable to bachelors, are to be made to fix the proper multiplicand. Such an exercise would give the multiplicand as applicable in both the cases as 9,000/-. Now, taking the multiplicand₹ as 9,000/- and the multiplier as 18, if the compensation payable₹ under the head 'loss of dependency' is re-assessed, it would come to ₹ 19,44,000/-. In such circumstances, the appellants in M.A.C.A.No.175 of 2012 are entitled to get an amount of 8,64,000/- additionally and₹
