1 fa1053 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1053 OF 2010 Smt. Shailaja Bhalchandra Tadphale & Ors. ... ... Appellants. Versus M/s. Bombay Seafood Suppliers & Anr. ... ... Respondents. Smt. S. V. Sonavane for the Appellants. Mr. N. G. Ghotekar for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 13TH AUGUST, 2010. P. C. : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. A short question is involved, hence the appeal is admitted and taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2. Mr. N. G. Ghotekar, learned Counsel waives service of notice for respondent No.2 – the contesting respondent. 3. The appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bombay in Application No. 4513 of 1997. The operative order reads thus: “O R D E R Application is partly allowed with proportionate costs. 2 fa1053 The opposite party and Insurer are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.3,75,000/- to the applicants within a period of four weeks from the date of this order together with interest thereon @ 7.5 p.a. from the date of filing of the claim Petition till its realisation. The compensation amount is inclusive of Rs.50,000/- awarded to the applicants under no fault liability. Out of the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- each be given to Applicants Nos.2, 3 and 5 and balance with interest accrued on the compensation amount be paid to the Applicant No.1 by A/c. Payee cheque on depositing the Court fees. (S. V. DEO) Date: 30/04/2007 MEMBER M.A.C.T., MUMBAI.” 4. Before us essentially two points have been raised. Firstly, that the deduction provided by the Tribunal is excessive and not correct. Secondly, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also not correct. 5. It is noticed that the Tribunal on analysing the evidence on record held that the deceased on the date of accident was around 60 years of age. This finding is reinforced from the circumstances, which can be culled out from the record that the deceased attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 31st December, 1994, whereas the accident took place on 8th February, 1997. In other words, on the date of accident, he had just completed 60 years of age only. In so far as the annual income of the deceased at the relevant time is concerned, the Tribunal on analysing the evidence on record has assumed that the annual income of the deceased at the relevant time was around Rs.80,000/-. In so far as this finding is concerned, the same is not assailed before us. As 3 fa1053 aforesaid, the grievance is that the deduction provided by the Tribunal of 1/3rd is excessive. That is so because the number of dependents in the family of the deceased are four as is recorded by the court below. Considering the number of dependents, as expounded by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v/s Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, in particular, paragraph 30 thereof. The deduction could have been provided only upto 1/4th and not 1/3rd as has been done by the Tribunal. To that extent the appellants ought to succeed. 6. The next argument of the appellants is that the Tribunal has erroneously applied multiplier of 6 inspite of the finding that at the relevant time the deceased was only around 60 years of age. The fact that the deceased was around 60 years of age when the accident took place is unexceptional. If so, the case will have to be considered in the context of the age of the deceased between the age group of 56 to 60 years as per the multiplier mentioned by the Apex Court in paragraph 41 of the same judgment. The same ought to be 9 instead 6 as applied by the Tribunal. Even on this point the appeal should succeed. 7. In view of the above, we will have to modify the order passed by the Tribunal by first providing for deduction of only 1/4th and thereafter applying multiplier of 9. That would be as under: 1/4th amount of Rs.80,000/- would be Rs.20,000/-. Deducting that 4 fa1053 amount the assumed amount would be Rs.60,000/-. That will have to be multiplied by 9 which would come to Rs.5,40,000/-. The figure mentioned by the Tribunal of loss of dependency of Rs.3,19,998/- will stand substituted by figure Rs.5,40,000/-. Rest of the benefits provided by the Tribunal will remain the same. If so, the appellant would be entitled to compensation amount of Rs.5,95,000/-. 8. In view of the above, the operative order of the Tribunal would stand modified as under: -: O R D E R :- The opposite party and Insurer are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,95,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs Ninety Five Thousand only) to the applicants within a period of four weeks from the date of this order together with interest thereon @ 7.5 p.a. from the date of filing of the claim Petition till its realisation. The appeal is allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)