1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE First Appeal No.186 of 2009 With Civil Application No.199 of 2009 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Govind Satu Jadhav & ors. Respondents Mr.S.S.Vidyarthi i/b. Mr.S.M.Vidyarthi for appellant. Mr.Pradeep Patil for respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. February 27, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Vidyarthi, the learned counsel for the appellant. As indicated in our order dated 11/2/2009 we have heard this appeal finally so as to dispose it off at the admission stage itself and, therefore, private paper book has been circulated by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the R. & P. has been received from the Claims Tribunal. 2. Mr.Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the appellant 2 challenged the impugned award dated 21/6/2008 rendered in Motor Accident Claim Case No.694 of 2004 by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigad at Alibaug mainly on two grounds viz. the monthly salary of the deceased and the multiplier fixed at 13. The subject accident had taken place on 25/10/2004 when the deceased Shri Bharat Jadhav, the son of claimant nos.1 and 2 and the father of claimant nos.3 and 4 was driving motorcycle under Registration No.MH-06-Q-2318 which belonged to his friend and he was hit by a tanker with registration No.MH-04-BG-4644. The said tanker was insured by the present appellant. The deceased was employed as Assistant Head Master on the date of accident with K.A.Banthia Madhyamik Vidyalaya and N.N.Paliwala Junior College at New Panvel, Dist. Raigad. The claimants had brought on record his salary certificates and for the month of September 2004 his total salary was shown at Rs.20,696/- with professional tax and income tax at Rs.1200/-. The claimants also examined Shri Milind Balkrishna Joshi, the Head Cleark in Banthia High School, Panvel. He stated that he was looking after the accounts and administration departments of the school. He confirmed the salary of the deceased for the month of September 2004 and he further stated that the deceased 3 was serving as Deputy Head Master and died on 26/10/2004. The date of birth of the deceased was 19/6/1957 and thus he was of the age of 47 years when he died. The witness further stated that he would have retired on attaining age of 58 years i.e. on 30/6/1915. He also stated that in normal course the deceased was to be promoted as Head Master in January 2005 and his monthly salary on promotion would have gone to Rs.32,706/-. 3. Despite all this evidence the Claims Tribunal accepted the salary of the deceased at Rs.18,589/- per month and by deducting 1/3rd on his own expenses, the net dependency was calculated at Rs.12,393/-, though by keeping in mind the salary of Rs.32,000/- per month, the monthly dependency amount could have been fixed at Rs.20,000/- plus. Mr.Vidyarthi invited our attention to the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jashuben & ors. [2008 [2008 [2008 (2) (2) (2) T.A.C. 12 (S.C.)] T.A.C. 12 (S.C.)] T.A.C. 12 (S.C.)], and submitted that the future rise in income was not required to be considered and the Tribunal rightly did not do so. We are not impressed by these submissions and having regard to the cross-examination of Shri Joshi, it is clear that the promotion of the deceased was imminent in January 4 2005 itself and there was no uncertainty about it. At the same time the promotion was not remotely placed or expected. Under these circumstances, if the Tribunal fixed the multiplier at 13 and that too with two minor children as dependents, it cannot be said that the Tribunal fell in error and the impugned award is vitiated on that count. Fixing of multiplier depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be a straight jacket formula. The age of the dependents, their source of earning, if any, and their educational status are some of the relevant factors which are required to be considered for fixing the multiplier and it is well established that the schedule of multiplier set out under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is at the most exemplary or a guiding factor. On a combined reading of the impugned award, we are satisfied that it does not call for reconsideration by this Court under its appellate jurisdiction and hence the appeal must fail in limine. Though the multiplier fixed at 13 appears to be on the higher side, the tribunal fell in error in fixing the monthly salary of the deceased and hence on its balancing, the award deserves to be confirmed, by giving benefits to both the sides. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Prasad Verma 5 [JT [JT [JT 2009 2009 2009 (1) SC 461] (1) SC 461] (1) SC 461], the deceased was 55 years of age on the date of accident and the Claims Tribunal had fixed the multiplier at 8, the Supreme Court held that it was not necessary to interfere with the application of multiplier at eight. 4. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant with the Registry of this Court be transferred to the Tribunal. 5. Civil application does not survive and the same stands disposed. 6. Certified copy, if applied for, be expedited. (D.G.KARNIK,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)