1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.874 OF 1995 1. Shubhangi Manohar Patil, C/o.Nitin Ganpat Pimple, Saimal, Khopoli, District Raigad. 2. Shruta Manohar Patil, since minor through her mother appellant no.1. Appellants VERSUS 1. Mahadeo Ganpat Pawar, R/oSaswad, Dist. Pune. 2. The General Manager, MSRTC, Swargate, Pune. 3. Hirubal Harichandra Patil, 4. Harichandra Heera Patil both r/o.6, Gurukrupa, Plot No.37, Flat No.6, Nathidwar Co-op. Hsg.Soc; Ashoknagar, Kandiwali (E), Mumbai. Respondents Mr.P.M.Jadhav i/by V.P.Sawant for appellants. Mr.C.M.Lokesh i/by M/s.G.S.Hegde & Associates for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 19th December 2009 JUDGEMENT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel 2 for the respondents. By this appeal preferred by the original claimants, an exception has been taken to the judgement and award dated 27th June 1995 passed by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appeal is preferred for enhancement of the compensation. The compensation has been claimed on account of death of one Manohar who died in an accident involving a bus of the second respondent on 16th January 1988. The first appellant is the widow of the deceased and second appellant is the minor daughter of the deceased. The third and fourth respondents are the parents of the deceased who were original claimants along with the appellants. The claim for compensation was in the sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,34,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition. The claim in this appeal is for enhancement by Rs.1.64 lakhs. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was an employee of Padmji Pulp and Papers Limited and was drawing salary of Rs.3,584=10 Ps.. He submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is on lower side. He submitted that even the multiplicand is not proper as the dependency has been taken only at Rs.1,400/- p.m.. He submitted that future prospects of enhancement in the income have not been considered. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Smt.Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ([2009]6-SCC-121). 3 3. The learned counsel for the first and second respondents supported the impugned judgement and award. He submitted that the appellants have not examined the employer of the deceased to prove the income certificate. He submitted that though the appellants claimed that the deceased was highly qualified, no certificates have been produced on record to prove the qualifications of the deceased. He submitted that even the nature of the employment has not been established and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in adopting the dependency at Rs. 1,400/- p.m.. He submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The widow of the deceased stepped into the witness box and stated that the deceased was an employee of M/s.Padamji Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the said Mills") and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.3,584/-. It is true that a representative of the employer has not been examined. At this stage it must be noted here that along with a list dated 6th June 1988, the appellants produced six documents. The said documents have been produced along with the claim petition. The document at sr.no.5 is the original income certificate dated 27th April 1988 issued by the said Mills. The document at sr.no.6 is a xerox copy of certificate of deduction of tax. On 13th June 1995 the advocate for the first and second respondents have made an endorsement on the said list that the said documents may be read in evidence. In view of the said concession, in fact both the documents ought to have been marked as 4 exhibits. Therefore, the said documents will have to be read in evidence. It must be noted that strict rules of the evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal. On 13th June 1995 the advocate for the first and second respondents made a remark in writing that the documents may be read in evidence. In the examination-in-chief, the first appellant stated that the deceased was an employee of the said mills and was drawing salary of Rs.3,584/-. On the very day the advocate for the first and second respondents cross examined the widow in which there is no challenge to the income stated by the widow. That is why it is not possible to find fault with the appellants for not examining the employer. In fact, in the examination-in-chief the widow stated that the deceased was holding a degree in Mechanical Engineering and had obtained MBA degree. She stated that he was well conversant with German language. The only challenge in the cross examination was to the statement that the deceased was holding qualification of MBA.. 5. The certificate dated 27th April 1988 discloses that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,584=10 Ps.. Apart from the said income, the deceased was entitled to annual bonus, medical expenses etc.. However, there is a deduction such as professional tax, income tax and provident fund @ 8% of the basic salary and dearness allowance. The date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 9th December 1952 and it is disclosed that he had 25 years to go in service. 6. Hence, the gross income of the deceased will have to be taken at 5 Rs.3,584/-. The net income per month will have to be taken at Rs.3,000/-. The certificate of the employer disclosed that the deceased had 25 years service left with the said mills. Therefore, in terms of the decision of Apex Court in case of Sarma Varma (supra), 50% of the net income will have to be added towards future prospects of increase in the income. Thus, the salary for the purposes of calculating the multiplicand will have to be taken at Rs.4,500/-. Though the parents of the deceased have been shown as dependents, only the widow and the daughter will have to be taken as dependents and, therefore, one third amount will have to be deducted on account of personal expenditure of the deceased. Thus, after deducting one third of Rs.4,500/-, the dependency comes to Rs.3,000/- per month. The yearly dependency will be Rs.36,000/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Varma (supra), the multiplier of 15 will have to be applied. If that is done, the compensation amount will exceed Rs.5.00 lakhs. The claim made by the appellants is of Rs.4.00 lakhs out of which a sum of Rs.2.34 lakhs inclusive of no fault liability has already been granted. The claim made in the appeal is only of Rs.1.64 lakhs which will have to be accepted. 6. As far as interest on the enhanced amount is concerned, considering the fact that interest rates have considerably gone down in the recent past, interest @ 7.5% p.a. will have to be fixed from the date of filing of the claim petition. 7. Hence, I pass following order :- 6 (A) In addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants will be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1.64 lakhs with interest thereon @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit of the said amount with the Tribunal; (B) The appellant will be entitled to costs of this appeal from first and second respondents; (C) Time of three months is granted to the second respondent to comply with the modified award; (D) The appeal is allowed in the above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.)