IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.604 OF 1990 APPEAL NO.604 OF 1990 APPEAL NO.604 OF 1990 WITH WITH WITH CROSS CROSS CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO.27638 OF 1990. OBJECTION (ST) NO.27638 OF 1990. OBJECTION (ST) NO.27638 OF 1990. Maharashtra State Road ) Transport Corporation ) ...Appellant Versus. 1. Minakshi Balkrishna Mohite, ) 2. Rupali Balkrishna Mohite, ) 3. Vaishali Balkrishna Mohite. ) ...Respondents --- Shri C.M.Lokesh i/by Shri G.S.Hegde for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. --- CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 17th MARCH, 2008. : 17th MARCH, 2008. : 17th MARCH, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Heard advocate for the appellant. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 07th March, 1988 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.262 of 1986. By the impugned judgment and Award, total four Claim Petitions were disposed of by a common judgment arising out of same accident. 2. A bus of the appellant-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation was proceeding from Atpadi to Mumbai. The bus left Atpadi at the scheduled time. The bus was full. According to the conductor, there were about 60 passengers at the relevant time. However, the case made out by the claimants was that there were 75 : 2 : 2 : 2 : passengers at the relevant time. 3. It is an admitted position that the road was under repairs. There was a dash given by the bus to a motorcycle. Both the persons on the motor cycle died on the spot. 4. In the present appeal we are concerned with a claim made by the widow and daughters of one Balkrishna Mohite who was plying the motorcycle. According to the case of the claimants, the deceased was driving a motorcycle at a very slow speed by the left side of the road. It is stated that the bus came in a fast speed on its wrong side and gave a dash to the motorcycle. 5. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The trial Court found that the age of the deceased was about 40 years. His income was found to be Rs.2139.15 p.m. The Tribunal took monthly dependency at Rs.1,000/- and applied multiplier of 15. Total compensation of Rs.02,10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. 6. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellants is that finding on the issue of negligence : 3 : 3 : 3 : recorded by the Tribunal is incorrect. His submission is that there is no negligence on the part of the bus driver. He submitted that the multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal is extremely on the higher side. He submitted that the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal for calculating the multiplicand is excessive and contrary to the evidence on record. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions. The appellants examined one eye-witness Shri Anil Shinde at Exhibti 37. There is evidence on record of the driver of the bus and one passenger by name Shivaji Patil. The spot panchnama has been also admitted in evidence at Exhibit 43. The learned Member of the Tribunal after perusal of the Panchanama and a copy of FIR at Exhibit 40 found that the bus was on its wrong side at the time of impact. Considering the evidence on record the learned Member of the Tribunal found that the eye-witness Anil deposed that the motorcyclist had cut down the speed on seeing the speeding bus. It was found that the bus went on the wrong side and that too for a considerable distance. It is difficult to find fault with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence. 8. As far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal found that there was no documentary evidence on record : 4 : 4 : 4 : of the age of the deceased Balkrishna. His widow deposed that age of deceased Balkrishna was 40 years. The post mortem notes describe the age of the deceased as 35 years. The learned Member of the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 40 considering the evidence of the widow. While arriving at the said finding, the learned Member of the Tribunal has considered the age of the widow and minor daughters. 9. The learned Member of the Tribunal found that the certificate at Exhibit 50 shows that the income of the deceased was Rs.2139.15 p.m. For the purpose of calculating multiplicand, one third amount ought to have been deducted towards personal expenditure. After deducting one third amount, the dependency would have been Rs.1,400/- per month. However, the learned Member of the Tribunal has taken the dependency only at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. 10. There is a justification for the criticism made by the learned advocate for the appellant that multiplier of 15 could not have been applied in case of the deceased whose age is 40 years.It is true that multiplier could have been 10 or 11. However, if multiplier method is to be correctly applied, the dependency will have to be taken as Rs.1,400/- per month and thereafter the multiplier of 10 or 11 will have to : 5 : 5 : 5 : be applied. If multiplier of 11 is applied, there will not be much difference between the compensation amount thereby arrived at and the compensation which is ordered to be paid by the learned Member of the Tribunal. Therefore, the ultimate figure of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. 11. A grievance was sought to be made as regards the rate of interest of 12% awarded by the Tribunal. The accident in the present case has taken place in May 1986 and the Claim Petition was also of the year 1986 which was decided in the year 1988. Therefore, there was every justification for fixing the rate of interest at 12% per annum. 12. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 13. As none appears for the respondents, the cross-objection is dismissed. Judge. Judge. Judge.