in lump sum an amount of �1.00 lac as compensation and which the learned counsel for contesting parties rightly admitted ought to have been evaluated on the basis of taking her notional income. Though not much has come in the evidence, having regard to the qualification of the deceased, her age, social and economic status of the family, it would suffice to hold that the deceased Kamalpreet Kaur in all likelihood must be contributing �3,000 per month as notional income in terms of money to the family. Being a single/unmarried in view of the ratio laid down in $�%&��'()��++,-'.%���/0*'1�!2(��3����0*4)� *'(��25%-+ � reported in ������6�7�����6�)3)47�8�8 , 1/2 needs to be deducted and therefore, annual dependency of the family comes to �18,000. Having regard to the relative ages of the claimants and that of the deceased, multiplier of 12 appears to be the most appropriate. Learned counsel for the appellants could not show any evidence on the record, which could impel this Court to take multiplier on the higher side. Thus, total loss of dependency comes to �2,16,000. Besides this, the family must have spent money on the last rites and ceremonies and also needs to be compensated for the loss of love and affection, and their future life and therefore, under the conventional heads a sum of �1,00,000 needs to be awarded. Thus, total compensation comes to �3,16,000 in respect of the death of Kamalpreet Kaur.
