1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1099 OF 1994 1. Smt.Snehlata Lalitkumar Sharma, 2. Miss Savita Lalitkumar Sharma, 3. Major Umeshkumar Sharma, 4. Sukeshkumar Sharma, 5. Miss Namita Lalitkumar Sharma Appellants versus 1. M/s.S.G.Gokhale & Co; 2. The New India Assurance Co., Pune. Respondents Mr.A.S.Rao i/by S.P.Saxena and A.P.Tadkalkar for appellants. Ms.Urmila K. Sanil for respondent no.3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 07th December 2009 JUDGEMENT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for third respondent. The appellants are the claimants who filed a claim petition on account of death of one Lalitkumar in an accident involving a motor vehicle. The first appellant is the widow of the deceased. The second and fifth appellants are the daughters of the deceased and third and fourth appellants are the sons of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1.20 lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. His 2 submission is that the multiplicand is not properly calculated. His submission is that if the multiplicand was properly applied, the appellants were entitled to the claim of Rs.2.50 lakhs. The learned counsel for the third respondent supported the impugned judgement and award by pointing out that the children of the deceased were adults on the date on which the accident occurred and considering the fact that the family pension is being received by the appellants, the compensation of Rs.1.20 lakhs is reasonable and proper and no interference is called for. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was employed as a Foreman in the Ministry of Defence. The Tribunal has accepted the age of the deceased on the date of accident as 50 years. The Tribunal has referred to the certificate showing that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.2,659/- per month. The Tribunal has referred to the documentary evidence on record which shows the salary which the deceased could have received as per the revision of pay scales on the basis of report of fourth pay commission. The Tribunal has taken the average salary of the deceased at Rs.3,750/-. The Tribunal has taken different dependency for different claimants and has come to the conclusion that the real loss of dependency is only to the first appellant. The said dependency is calculated at Rs.90,000/-. The loss of consortium is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The loss of love and affection to the appellant nos.2 to 5 is quantified at Rs.10,000/- and pain and sufferings to the deceased is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. That is how the figure of Rs.1.20 lakh has been arrived at. In my view, the entire approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. It is true that 2nd and 3rd appellants could not have been treated as dependents. Surely the first and fifth appellants were the dependents as age of the 5th appellant-daughter was 20 years and her occupation was shown as a student. The law on the aspect of multiplier method has been crystallized by the Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009)6-SCC-121]. In paragraph 24 of the said decision, the Apex Court has held that addition of 3 30% should be made on account of future prospects of increase in income where the deceased had a permanent job and where the age of deceased was between 40 to 50 years. The Apex Court observed that where the age of the deceased was more than 50 years, no such addition can be made. In the present case, the evidence on record shows that the deceased was in the permanent employment of Ministry of Defence and, therefore, 30% amount will have to be added to the salary of Rs.2,659/- for the purposes of calculating the multiplicand. Thus, the income of the deceased for the purposes of calculating the multiplicand will have to be taken at Rs.3,456/-. Only one third deduction can be made as there will be only two dependents of the deceased. After making one third deduction, the monthly dependency will come to Rs.2,304/-. As per the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the multiplier of 13 will have to be applied. If multiplier of 13 is applied, the compensation amount will be more than Rs.2.50 lakhs. The claim made by the appellants was of Rs. 2.50 lakhs out of which a sum of Rs.1.20 lakh has been granted by the Tribunal. In the appeal an enhancement of Rs.1.30 lakh has been prayed for. No deduction can be made on the ground that the first appellant is receiving family pension. Even if conservative estimate is made by adopting the tests laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Varma (supra), the compensation payable will be much more than Rs.2.50 lakhs. 4. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Considering the fact that the rates of interest of nationalized banks have been considerably reduced in the recent past, on the additional amount, interest @ 7.5% p.a. will have to be awarded. 5. Hence, I pass following order :- (A) In addition to the compensation awarded under the impugned judgement and award, the respondents shall pay jointly and severally the additional amount of compensation of Rs.1.30 lakhs (Rs.One lakh thirty 4 thousand only) to the appellants with interest thereon @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit of the said amount with the Tribunal; (B) The appellants will be entitled to proportionate costs of this appeal from the respondents; (C) Time of four months from today is granted to the third respondent to deposit the additional compensation amount with the Tribunal; (D) After the additional amount is deposited, the Tribunal will pass appropriate orders regarding disbursement/withdrawal of the compensation amount; (E) First Appeal is allowed in the above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.)