1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.393 OF 1992. 1. Shivaji Gangadhar Mathapati, 2. Nagesh Gangadhar Mathapati, 3. Shankar Gangadhar Mathapati, 4. Chandrakala d/o Gangadhar. Appellants-Claimants Nos.2 to 4 are under guardianship of their real brother Appellant-Claimant No.1 Shivaji. ... Appellants. Versus 1. Hanif Jan Mohamad; 2. Amarsingh Gulabsingh Pawar, 3. United India Insurance Company Hanuman Chowk, Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Chillarge, advocate holding for Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the appellants. Mr.V.R.Mundada, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 14.10.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This is claimants' appeal. The present appellants had filed Motor Accident Claims Petition on account of the death of their brother who died in an accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). Dissatisfied with the said amount of compensation, the appellants have approached this Court. 2. I have heard Mr.S.S.Chillarge, learned counsel holding for Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the appellants and Mr.V.R.Mundada, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3. 3. It is submitted by Mr.Chillarge, learned counsel that the amount of compensation awarded is too inadequate and the Tribunal has not considered the dependency. Even if notional income is considered, the amount of compensation would be much more. According to the learned counsel, even the multiplier has not been applied properly. The appellants are totally dependent 3 on the deceased. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the amount awarded is reasonable. There is no proof of income of the deceased. There is no proof that the present appellants were dependents on the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has considered all the relevant aspect and arrived at the correct conclusion. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the record and proceedings and also the judgments. Even if it is assumed that there is no proof of income, the notional income of the said period will be required to be considered and the same would be Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) p.a. As the deceased was Bachelor, half of the amount would be required to be deducted for his personal use. Multiplier of eight (8) could be proper. Taking into account all these aspects, I hold that the appellant Nos.2 to 4 would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.48,000/- (Rupees forty 4 eight thousand). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). I have been informed that the appellants have received the said amount. 6. In the result, I pass the following order : ORDER The appellant Nos.2 to 4 shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.48,000/- (Rupees forty eight thousand). The appellants have already received the amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). As such the appellant Nos.2 to 4 would be entitled for further amount of Rs.23,000/- (Rupees twenty three thousand) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of this appeal i.e. since 10.10.1992 till the date of realisation. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/fa39392 5