1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2682 OF 2009 1. M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Having its Head and Regd. Office at 87 New India Assurance Building, Fort Mumbai 400 001, Branch at Ahmednagar, and Divisional Office at Adalat Road, Ajay Engg. Compound, Aurangabad through its Senior Divisional Manager, Mr. Vishwas Bansi Gaikwad. 2. Dr. Fattusingh Subedarsing Rajpur, Age : Major, Occu. : Transport, R/o Gadalkar Mala, Station Road, Ahmednagar - 414 001. Since dead on 26.01.2003 at Visauri, Madhi, Tq. Kerakal, Dist. Jaunpur. through his brother Mr. Omprakashsingh S/o Subedarsingh Rajput, as manager of Joint Hindu Family R/o Gadalkar Mala, Station Road, Ahmednagar - 414 001. .. Appellants Versus 1. Pravin Popatlal Gandhi, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Business, 2 2. Nadini Pravin Gandhi, Age : 46 Years, Occ. Household, Both R/o Navjeevan Colony, Behind Punammoti, Ahmednagar. .. Respondents Shri V. N. Upadhye, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri A. M. Gholap, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2010. JUDGMENT : . The appellants assail the judgment of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, dated 13th September, 2008 in M.A.C.P. No. 129/2005, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,57,000/- to the claimants/present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and directed the present appellants to pay the amount of Rs. 4,57,000- with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization to the present respondents. 2. The present respondents had filed claim petition on account of death of their son Anup, age 20 years. The deceased Anup was riding on Kinetic Honda scooter at that time the truck 3 bearing No. MTD-4291 was driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the said truck because of which the accident took place and deceased Anup died on the spot. The said vehicle was insured with the present appellant No. 1 and owned by the appellant No. 2. 3. After recording the evidence and hearing arguments of the respective counsels, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the present respondents and directed the present appellants to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs. 4,57,000/- to the present respondents. Being aggrieved by the same the appellants have approached to this Court. 4. Shri Upadhye, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that, the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the early age of the deceased, the uncertainties in regard to the academic pursuits, achievements in career and then-after advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty, and, therefore, neither the income of the deceased is capable of assessment on estimated basis, nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computations. 4 5. Shri Upadhye, learned counsel for appellants further submitted that, the Tribunal has also erred in deducting only 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses, when the deceased Anup was bachelor, in such circumstances, the deduction ought to be 50% for the said purpose, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104. 6. Shri Upadhye, also further submitted that, there was no basis for computation of the income and the multiplier of 16 is applied which is on the higher side. 7. Shri Gholap, learned counsel for respondents countered the argument of Shri Upadhye and submitted that, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income and applied the multiplier. There is evidence on record to show that the present respondents were doing transport business. Income tax returns were also filed and deceased Anup was assisting his father in the business, so also persuading his higher studies. According to him, the multiplier of 17 and deduction of 1/3 amount for personal expenses is justifiable to buttress his submissions relied on the judgment of 5 Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi and Ors. reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2442 and the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurumallamma and Anr. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 7434. 8. I have heard the learned counsels at length and with their assistance has also gone through the record. 9. No doubt the judgment relied by Shri Upadhye of the Apex Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma referred supra supports the argument of Shri Upadhye that if the deceased is a bachelor then 50% amount has to be deducted for personal expenses and multiplier of 15 only ought to have applied. At the same time, the Apex Court in the judgment of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. referred supra has observed thus : "4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, wer are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court and Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore, determining the loss of dependency by 50% was not correct. Therefore, we assess that he must be spending 1/3rd towards personal use and 6 contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family....." 10. The Apex Court in a case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurumallamma and Anr. referred supra has also observed that the deceased was 22 years old and bachelor, multiplier of 17 was appropriate. 11. In the light of aforesaid judgments, I have no hesitation to hold that deduction of 1/3 amount only for personal expenses was proper and the multiplier applied is not excessive and the income determined of the deceased Anup at Rs. 3,000/- is also proper. 12. There is no contra evidence adduced by the respondents, the respondents have not led any evidence. 13. In the light of above, no fault can be found in the judgment of the Court below. As such, the first appeal stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/August 10