JUDGMENT
M. Srinivasan, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company as well as the owner of the vehicle. The only challenge before us is as regards the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. No argument has been advanced as regards the finding on the question of negligence.
2. The deceased was aged 37 years. He was employed in the Railways as a khalasi. He was getting Rs. 1,548/- p.m. as total emoluments. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 22 and calculated the total loss of income at Rs. 4,08,672/-. In view of the fact that the compensation has been paid in lump sum, the Tribunal deducted one-third therefrom and fixed the compensation at Rs. 2,72,448/-. In addition thereto, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/-towards pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000 towards loss of love and affection for minor respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and thus, in all a sum of Rs. 2,97,448/-.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in not deducting any amount for the personal expenses of the deceased. According to him, one-third of the monthly emoluments must have been deducted for personal expenses. It is also argued by him that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is wrong and it ought to have adopted only 12 as the multiplier. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon a judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas . In the case before the Supreme Court, the deceased was aged about 39 years and a multiplier of 12 was applied. But it is seen that in that case, the monthly emolument of the deceased at the time of death was Rs. 1,032/-, but the Supreme Court taking into account the future prospects in the matter of income, etc., increased the amount to Rs. 2,000/- as gross income per month. From that gross amount, the Supreme Court deducted a sum of Rs. 600/- for his personal expenses and arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,400/- as loss of dependency per month and on that basis, a multiplier of 12 was applied. In the present case, the Tribunal has taken into account the fact that there will be future increments in salary and the fact that the family had been deprived of the additional benefits, which they would have derived had the deceased been alive, such as free medical aid, free travel facilities and food articles at concessional rate in the railway co-operative stores. Instead of valuing these facilities and benefits in terms of money the Tribunal had simply adopted the salary, which the deceased had been earning at the time of his death, without giving any credit for the future benefits. It is one way of calculating the income for the purpose of awarding compensation. If the Tribunal had taken into account the future increments and other benefits that could have been derived by the deceased, then it should have deducted a particular percentage for personal expenses and in not having done so, the Tribunal is justified in taking the amount of salary that deceased had been receiving at the time of his death, as the basis for working out the compensation.
4. There is no error in adopting the multiplier at 22, as the deceased at the time of this death was aged only 37 years. It is only on that basis, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier as 22. The Tribunal has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation 1992 ACJ 300 (SC). In that case the deceased was aged about 35 years.
5. The Supreme Court has adopted a multiplier of 24. The Supreme Court said that the span of life should be taken to be 70 years in view of the high rise in life expectancy and the Tribunal was in error in that case in having fixed the normal span of life to be 60 years and that of an Army Officer at 56. The Supreme Court also observed that deduction of one-third out of the total compensation on account of lump sum payment was not justified, as the value of rupee was dwindling on account of high rate of inflation. The Tribunal, in this case, has rightly adopted the principle laid down in that judgment and arrived at the compensation.
6. Yet another judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Chandra v. Pallavan Transport Corporation . In that case, the High Court adopted the multiplier of 13 on the footing that the average expectation of life was 55 years. The Supreme Court held that the average life expectancy was 65 years even in 1979 and on that footing, adopted a. multiplier of 20. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in adopting the multiplier of 22 and fixing the compensation at Rs. 2,72,448/-and that does not warrant interference in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.