As seen from the record, the accident took place in the year 2005, and even taking the minimum wages prevailing during the said period, the income of Rs.40/- per day fixed by the Tribunal is definitely on a lower side. It is a normal practice that while claiming compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, the claimants will have a tendency to mention the income more than what the deceased was actually earning so as to get more compensation. In the claim petition as well as in evidence, it was stated that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. But, having regard to the age and health condition of the deceased and also the period during which the accident took place, I deem it appropriate to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month. If the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.2,500/- per month, the annual income would be Rs.30,000/. After deducting 1/3rd towards living and personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.20,000/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased was found to be 30 years at the time of the accident, which is not disputed either by the claimants or by the insurer, the suitable multiplier to be adopted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anothe r[2] , would be “17”. By applying the same, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.3,40,000/(Rs.20,000/- x 17).
