that RW- 1 / father of the deceased clairned that he taught singing and carpentry work to the deceased. The petitioners produced no evidence showing that the deceased learned carpentry or singing by himself or somebody else. In the circumstances, it has to be inferred that RW- I has brought up the deceased from his childhood and taught him carpentry and singing. Carpentry is a skilled job and monthly income should be considered at Rs.6,000/- as per the principle held by the Apex Court in Jagdish's case (Supra). As such, this Court assesses the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,O0O/- per month. To this future prospects at 40% is to be added as per the decision in National Insurance Compang Ltd.. Vs. Pranag Sethi and, othersz. Since the age of the deceased is shown as 25 years, the appropriate multiplier as per Scrla Venna Vs, Delhi Trdftsport Corporatlons is '18', but the Court below wrongly took the multiplier as "17". Since, the deceased was a bachelor, 5O% of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as per the decision of Sarla Venna (supra). The assessment of the loss of dependency would thus be as follows:
