1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.436 OF 2009 Surekha Rohidas Tarange & Anr. ...Appellants. v. Sanjay Nanchand Shatha & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms.Kavita Pawar i/by Shri Sanjay Kshirsagar, advs. For the Appellants. Ms. Ratna Bhargaran i/by M/s.R.Bhargavan & Assoc.,adv. For the Respondent No.2. Mr.Rohan S. Darandale, adv. for the Respondent No.4. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 5th October , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 This appeal is filed only for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for death of the deceased Rohidas. 3 Deceased Rohidas, who was husband of the petitioner no.1 and father of the petitioner no.2, was travelling by a motor cycle no. MH-13-M-5972 as a pillion rider. Respondent no.3 was driving the motor cycle. Motor cycle was insured with the respondent no.4. Premier Car bearing no.MH-14 D 847 belonging to the respondent no.1 and insured with the respondent no.2 came from the opposite side and gave dash to motor cycle. As a result, Rohidas suffered fatal injuries and died 2 on the spot. He was agriculturist and was also doing milk business. According to the claimants, his income was around Rs.5,000/- p.a. They claimed compensation of Rs.5 lac. Claim petition was contested by the respondents. 4 Claims Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. Taking into consideration their contributions, it was held that the respondent nos.1 and 2, i.e., the owner and insurer of the car were liable to pay 40% of the compensation while respondent nos.3 and 4, owner and the insurer of the motor cycle, were liable to pay 60% of the compensation. Total compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- was awarded and the respondents were directed to pay the amount in ratio of 40% and 60%. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants contends that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence properly while determining the compensation. The multiplier is also not properly applied and the amount of compensation on account of loss of consortium to wife is not sufficient compensation. No compensation has been granted on account of loss of love and affection for the minor child. 6 On perusal of the record, it appears that the deceased was earning on an average Rs.1,500/- per month by sale of milk and thus, 3 total income was Rs.18,000/- per annum. That was the price of milk and could not be the net income. Atleast about 40% to 50% of the same would be expenses towards the maintenance of the cattles and hardly about 50% to 60% of the total price would be the net income. He was cultivating four acres of land. Evidence shows that his brother was cultivating four acres of land and 26 acres of land was cultivated by his father. After death of Rohidas , his wife and child left the village and went to her parents place and now their land is cultivated by her father- in-law. Due to death of deceased, family would be required to engage atleast one more worker to do that much work, which he would have done . Taking into consideration this and the total income from the milk, it can be held that the net income, which can be attributed to his work would be around Rs.18,000/- p.a. from which 1/3rd amount could be deducted towards the personal expenses and the balance amount of Rs. 12,000/- p.a. could be treated as loss of dependency . However, now it is well settled that the maximum multiplier of 18 can be applied. Taking into consideration the fact that he was in the prime age of 24 years, he was already married and working, therefore, in my considered opinion, multiplier of 18 years should have been applied. The trial Court applied multiplier of 17. If multiplier 18 is applied, amount of compensation on 4 this count comes to Rs.2,16,000/-. Towards the loss of consortium to wife compensation of only Rs.10,000/-was awarded. In fact amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of consortium used to be given during 1980’s and 1990’s. Due to inflation, value of the rupee has substantially gone down. This incident occurred in the year 2001 and the claim petition was filed in the year 2002. Taking into consideration this aspect in my considered opinion, the compensation on this count should not be less than Rs.25,000/-. The claims Tribunal did not award any compensation towards the loss of love and affection for the minor child, who is petitioner no.2. He was just aged about one year and he has to live without care, love and affection of his father. Therefore, in my considered opinion, on this count also amount of Rs.25,000/- may be awarded . The trial Court has granted an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards the funeral expenses, to which no objection can be taken. In view of this, total compensation amount which the appellants are entitled is Rs. 2,70,000/- while the trial Court has granted Rs.2,20,000/-. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed partly. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order stands modified as follows: 5 The petitioners shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- inclusive of N.F.L. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay 40% while the respondent nos.3 and 4 shall jointly and severally pay 60% of the said amount. Amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the realisation of the amount. Out of total compensation amount, an amount of Rs.1 lac shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner no.2 with some nationalised bank and he will be entitled to withdraw this amount on attaining the majority. Petitioner no.1 shall be allowed to receive interest thereon from time to time. Petitioner no.1 shall get an amount of Rs.70,000/- while amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to each of the petitioner nos.5 and 6, mother and father of the deceased by cheques. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)