1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL No.1774 OF 2009 1] Alka W/o Pandir Kadus, Age 40 years, Occu. Household 2] Deepak S/o Pandir Kadus Age 16 years, Occu. Nil 3] Amar S/o Pandit Kadus, Age 14 years, Occu. Nil, Nos. 2 & 3 are minor through their guardian mother No. 1 All r/o Sarola Kasar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. .. APPELLANTS VERSUS 1] Trilok Singh Sanjit Singh, age 50 yrs, Occu. Business r/o 77, Indrapuri Colony, Indore, Dist. Indore, (M.P.) 452 001. 2] Punamsingh Pataliya Asawa Age 45 years, Occu. Driver r/o Pimplya Kamin Post Pagara Tq. Dharampuri, Dist. Dhar, (M.P.) (Appeal dismissed against respondent No. 2 as per Courts order dated 28th April,2010.) (notice to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be sent R.P.A.D. in addition the Court notice) 3] National Insurance Company 2 through Divisional Manager, 201 Ambar Plaza, A-Wing, IInd floor Near S.T. Stand road, Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri S.L.Bhapkar, Advocate for Appellants Shri S.P. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The appellants have instituted Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 387 of 2005, praying for compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/- from the respondents, on account of the death of deceased Pandit i.e. Husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos.2 & 3. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,Ahmednagar, partly allowed the petition, and has granted compensation to the appellants to the tune of Rs. 1,60,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the realization of entire decretal dues. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded has approached this Court. 3 2. The dispute in present appeal, only pertains to the quantum of compensation. The factum of accident, negligence as has been arrived at by the Tribunal is not a disputed facts. 3. Shri Bhapkar,learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that vide Exh. 45,the salary certificate is produced on record. The employer has also been examined who has proved the said certificate. There was no reason to disbelieve the certificate and the evidence of the employer. There was no contrary evidence on record. According to him, income of the deceased Pandit was Rs.6,000/- per month as a salary from his employment and Rs. 3,000/- from the agricultural land and milk business. The same is substantiated by the entries in 7/12 extract. 4. Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, submitted that the certificate is not proved as is required under the law. No sanctity can be attached to the 4 said certificate. The employer in the cross- examination has specifically denied, to produce the muster roll. There is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that the deceased Pandit was in the employment of D.N. Sarode firm. According to him, even assuming the notional income, it could not exceed Rs. 30,000/- per annum. 5. With the assistance of learned Advocates for the parties and have gone through the record and the evidence of the employer of the deceased Pandit. In the cross-examination there was not even a suggestion given to the witness that the certificate issued by his firm is not genuine one. The Tribunal only on the count that the employer of deceased Pandit has refused to produce the muster roll and the documents relating to the salary paid to the deceased Pandit has not considered the case of appellants. There was no reason to disbelieve the said certificate at Exh. 45, which shows that deceased Pandit was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. 5 6. There was nothing on record to establish that deceased Pandit was doing milk business and was earning some amount in the same. So also, the 7/12 extracts do not suggest that the said land was a Bagayat land and was yielding substantial income. 7. In the light of the above, the income of the deceased Pandit can be taken to be Rs. 5,000/- per month and deducting 1/3rd amount for his personal use. The amount of Rs. 3500/- per month can be considered for computing compensation. The age of the deceased was 37 years and, as per the schedule the multiplier of 16 can be applied. The Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs. 1,60,400/-, assuming the income at Rs. 1200/- per month. Even minimum wages would more than the said amount. 8. As observed above, I hold the amount of compensation payable to the appellants would be arrived at by accepting loss of Rs. 3500/- per month, and by applying multiplier of 16, the appellants would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 6 6,72,000. But the appellants have claimed an amount of Rs. 4,80,000/-. As such & Award Rs. 4,80,000/- (Rs. Four Lakh eighty thousand) as total amount of compensation payable by the respondents jointly and severally to the claimants. The amount of Rs. 1,60,400/-(Rs. One lakh sixty thousand four hundred) along with interest 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal has already been withdrawn by the appellants. The said amount, would be deducted from the amount of Rs. 4,80,000/-(Rs. Four Lakh eighty thousand). The Remaining amount shall be paid by the respondents to the appellants with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The interest @ 7.5% shall be calculated on the remaining amount from the date of withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 1,60,400/-with interest. Appeal, accordingly is allowed. However, with no order as to costs. [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 1774.09FA