:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2002 1. Shri Datta Arjun Dessai, major in age, agriculturist, resident of House No. 117, Shigao, Collem, Goa and ( since deceased ) represented by his legal heirs : 1a. Shri Shivaji Datta Dessai son of late Datta Dessai aged 60 years, married, and his wife. 1b. Smt. Surekha Shivaji Dessai aged 57 years, married, 1c. Shri Premanand Datta Dessai, son of late Datta Dessai aged 53 years, married, and his wife. 1d. Smt. Sharda Premanand Dessai, aged 50 years, married, 1e. Shri Balaji Datta Dessai, son of late Datta Dessai, aged 45 years, married, and his wife. 1f. Smt. Nirmala Balaji Dessai aged 38 years, married, all above residents of House No.117, Shigao, Collem Goa. 1g.Smt. Janaki Janu Sawant alias Shobha Janu Sawant daughter of late Datta Dessai aged 42 years, married, and her husband. 1h.Shri Janu Vithu Sawant son of Vithu Sawant, aged 56 years, married, both above residents of Ibrampur, Pernem Goa. 1i. Smt. Sanjana Subhash Gauns alias Pratibha Subhash Gauns daughter of late Datta Dessai aged 40 years, married, and her husband. :2: 1j. Shri Subhash Surya Gauns son of Surya Gauns aged 49 years, married, both above residents of Amona, Sanquelim Goa. 2. Smt. Shantabai Datta Dessai, major in age, housewife, resident of House No. 117, Shigao, Collem Goa. ... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Shri Rama Babu Varak, major in age, driver, resident of Vansaiwada, Shigao, Collem Goa. 2. Shri Sudhakar Govind Dessai, major in age, businessman, resident of House No.90, Shigao, Collem Goa, and 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Gafoor Building, Curchorem Goa. ... Respondents Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. E. Afonso, Advocate for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 16 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : This appeal by the original claimants is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th February, 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao :3: Goa, ( for short “the Tribunal”) awarding compensation of Rs.75,000/-. 2. The appellants who are the original claimants are the parents of Narendra Datta Dessai ( hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) who died in an accident on 8th April, 1995. The deceased was travelling in a truck by standing in the body of the truck, to proceed to Shigao. According to the appellants, the truck was being driven in rash and negligent manner and while negotiating a turn, the deceased fell down from the truck and the rear tyre of the truck went over his body killing him on the spot. The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a petition for compensation against the driver and the owner of the truck. The insurance company was joined as respondent no. 3. It appears that the owner and the driver of the truck did not defend the claim and only the insurance company appeared and contested the claim application. After consideration of the evidence adduced on record, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards the loss of earning ( contribution which the deceased would have made to the family ) and added to it a sum of Rs.15,000/- as conventional sum towards the funeral expenses etc. The Tribunal thus awarded a total compensation of Rs.75,000/-. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the appellants are in appeal. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the original appellant no. 1 who was the father of the deceased died and his heirs were brought on :4: record. The appellant no.2, the mother of the deceased has also continued the appeal. The Tribunal held that the driver of the truck was negligent in driving the truck. No cross objections have been filed against the said decision. The learned Counsel for the insurance company did not challenge the correctness of this finding. Appeal is, therefore, restricted to the amount of compensation. 4. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 32 years of age and was employed in a motor garage on a salary of Rs.1500/- per month. There is some dispute as to whether the deceased was employed as a mechanic or merely employed as a helper. There is, however, no dispute that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.1500/- per month. The employer of the deceased was examined (CW4) and he has proved the salary certificate issued by him. The employer of the deceased deposed that the deceased was drawing total salary of Rs.1500/- per month. He further deposed that the deceased had worked with him for a period of three years as a mechanic. In the cross examination, the evidence of the employer of the deceased has not been shaken and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.1500/- per month as a mechanic. 5. The compensation amount to be awarded on account of death of a person in an accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle must be just and it should neither be exorbitant nor it should not be too low. :5: The age of the deceased is relevant. The Tribunal first determines what is the total income of the deceased, then considers what could be the personal expenses of the deceased and what would be his contribution to the family. The yearly income of the deceased is usually multiplied by certain number of years, which is called as a multiplier, and the amount derived by multiplication, with some additions and deductions depending on the facts of each case, usually is the amount of compensation payable. The multiplier varies depending upon the age of the deceased and where the dependents are the parents also upon the age of the parents. It would be therefore appropriate in the present case to consider two factors namely the contribution of the deceased to the family as also the multiplier. 6. In Sarla Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(4) ALL MR 429 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction for personal expenses is made on a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Considering the age of the deceased which was 32 years and also taking into consideration the factor that the deceased has elder brother living, :6: who must also contribute some amount to the family, it would be appropriate to make deduction of 50% earning of the deceased and contribution to the family can be held to the extent of 50% of his income. The deceased was earning Rs.1500/- per month as a salary and as such his contribution to the family could be taken as Rs.750/- per month which works out to Rs.9000/- per year. 7. So far as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of five years on the basis that the father of the deceased ( appellant no.1) was 70 years old and mother was 60 years old. For this purpose, the Tribunal has considered the age of the father to be 70 years on the basis of the statement of Balaji Dessai (CW1) brother of the deceased who was examined as witness. Balaji Dessai has stated that “ at present my father is about 70 years old and my mother is 60 years old”. The Tribunal appears to have totally lost sight of the fact that Balaji Dessai has stated the age of his parents on the date of the deposition. This is clear from the words “at present” appearing at the beginning of his answer. His deposition was recorded on 24th July, 2001 while the accident took place on 8th April, 1995. Thus, the appellant no.1 – the father of the deceased was about 64 years of age and the appellant no.2 – the mother of the deceased was about 54 years of age on the date of accident. Consequently, the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of only 5 years. The age of the mother was about 54 years and she would continue to be dependent on the deceased during her life time. Taking this into :7: consideration the appropriate multiplier should have been 8 to 9 years ( See table given in para 19 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation ( supra ). Of course the table mentions the age of the deceased person and not the age of the dependent. But the same principle could be applied as the contribution would have been for about 8 to 9 years as in the present case. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court must take into consideration the appropriate increase in salary of the deceased and should not restrict the contribution to Rs.9000/- per year. He sought to derive support for this submission from the observation made in para no. 11 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma ( supra ). No doubt in the said case the Supreme Court has held that the Court can take into consideration the possibility of increase in the salary and held that as rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of the salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects can be made where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. In the very para of the said decision, the Supreme Court held that where the deceased was self- employed or was on a fixed salary ( without provision for annual increments etc.), in that case the Courts will usually take into account only the actual income at the time of death. In the present case, the deceased was employed in a private employment in a motor garage. He was paid consolidated salary by his employer. The employer has not stated anything about periodical increment paid to the deceased. The employer :8: has stated that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.1500/- per month and he was employed for a period of three years, from which it can be seen that there was no periodical increment granted to the deceased. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the possibility of any increase in the income. The conclusion is that the contribution of the deceased was Rs.9000/- per year which would have continued to be 8 to 9 years. Applying the multiplier of 8.5 years to Rs.9000/-, the amount of compensation would work out to Rs.76,500/- to which a sum of Rs.15,000/- can be added as a conventional sum towards the funeral expenses and other charges as held by the Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation even works out to Rs.91,500/-. 8. For these reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondents shall pay to the appellants a sum of Rs.91,500/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition ( i.e. from 1st July, 1995 ) till payment. The amount of compensation, if any, already paid shall be deducted from this amount and the interest shall also be calculated on the balance amount from the date of previous payment. Since the legal representatives of the appellant no.1 appear to be siblings of the deceased who are employed and/or not dependent on the deceased the appellant no.2 will be entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation. D. G. KARNIK, J. :9: at*