1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.777 OF 1991 1. Tippannsa Vithalsa Chavan, 2. Sundarbai Tippansa Chavan Appellants versus 1. Jaysingh Laxmansingh, 2. Mohamad Vahab Mohamad Turab Shaikh, 3. New India Assurance Co. Respondents Mr.Vivek Salunkhe i/by Prafulla Shah for appellants. Smt.Urmila K. Sanil for respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th January 2010 JUDGEMENT :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants who are the original claimants in a claim petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The compensation is claimed on account of death of their son in a motor accident. The claim was made at Rs. 1.50 lakhs. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- (excluding the compensation amount paid under the no fault liability). Clause-II of the operative part of the award reads thus :- 2 "II) Opponent Nos.1 to 3 shall jointly and severally deposit in the Tribunal an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.One lac five thousand only) (excluding the amount of Rs.15,000/- already paid under section 92-A of the M.V.Act within a period of 10 weeks failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum." 2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the multiplicand taken by the Tribunal @ Rs.500/- per month is on the lower side. His submission is that the compensation under other headings has not been granted. His last submission is that interest @ 12% p.a. ought to have been made payable from the date of filing of the claim application. He submitted that no reasons have been assigned for not granting the interest from the date of filing of claim application. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that no interference is called for inasmuch as excessive multiplier of 20 has been applied by the Tribunal. She submitted that the impugned award deserves to be confirmed. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The appellants are the parents of the deceased. Even according to the mother (second appellant), the deceased was earning Rs.900/- p.m. as salary. The Tribunal has therefore rightly taken dependency @ Rs. 3 500/- p.m.. The respective ages of the appellants at the relevant time were 47 and 45. The multiplier of 20 has been applied which is to some extent on the higher side. Therefore, no fault can be found with the quantum of compensation awarded. 5. No reasons have been assigned by the learned Member of the Tribunal as to why interest is granted only on default. There was no reason to deny the interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 6. As stated earlier, the Multiplier applied is on the higher side. Moreover, with the passage of time the rates of interest paid by the nationalized banks have been considerably reduced. Therefore, the appellants will be entitled to interest on the compensation amount @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till the date on which compensation amount has been deposited by the third respondent. 7. Hence, the appeal is disposed of by passing following order :- (A) The impugned award is modified by directing that the compensation granted under the impugned award shall be paid along with interest thereon @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realisation or deposit of the compensation amount; 4 (B) Rest of the award is confirmed; (C) Time of four months is granted to the third respondents to deposit with the Tribunal the balance amount payable as per the modified award; (D) There will be no orders as to costs; (E) The appeal is partly allowed on above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.) 5 mst FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4714 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.777 OF 1991 Tippannasav Vithalse Chavan Applicant versus Jaysing Laxmisingh and others Respondents Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Vivek Salunkhe i/by Prafulla Shah for applicant. Smt.Urmila K. Sanil for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th January 2010 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (d). (A.S.OKA, J.)