: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.861 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.861 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.861 OF 1991 Chandrabhaga Narayan Jadhav & Ors. ...Appellants V/s. Jasbirsingh Harjitsingh Vasudev & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.T.J. Mendon, Advocate, for the Appellants. None for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. Appellants are the original claimants in a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The claim was filed on account of demise of Narayan Dandu Jadhav, the husband of the 1st appellant and father of the rest of the appellants. 2. The Tribunal accepted the case made out by the appellants that the deceased was a labourer and his daily earning was Rs.25/- to Rs.30/-. The Tribunal held that age of the deceased was about 65 years. The Tribunal has taken the dependency at Rs.300/- per month and has applied multiplier of 5 and granted compensation of Rs.18,000/- on account of loss of dependency and compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of consortium etc. The Tribunal awarded : 2 : interest at the rate of 12% p.a. 3. The submission of Mr.Mendon appearing for the appellants is that the age of the deceased could not have been taken as 65. Inviting my attention to the deposition of the 2nd appellant, he stated that the widow of the deceased was 45 years old at the time of the accident. According to the version of the appellant No.2, the deceased was 50 years old at the time of accident. The post-mortem notes record that the age of the deceased as 70 years. According to him the age shown in the post-mortem notes cannot be considered and therefore the age of the deceased ought to have been taken as 50 years. He submitted that daily earnings of Rs.25/- to Rs.30/- of the deceased have been accepted by the Tribunal. He, therefore, submitted that dependency taken at Rs.300/- is on the lower side. He submitted that interest granted at the rate of 9% is on the lower side and at the relevant time the consistent view was that interest should be at the rate of 12% p.a. None appears for the Respondents. There is no challenge to the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The 2nd appellant has deposed that the age of the : 3 : deceased was 50 years at the time of the accident and the age of his mother i.e. the widow of the deceased was 45 years. In the cross-examination he admitted that at the time of the accident the age of the deceased may be 55 years. Therefore, his age can be taken as 55 years. Therefore, application of multiplier of 5 cannot be faulted with. 5. The Tribunal has accepted the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.25/- to Rs.30/- per day. Assuming that the deceased was working atleast on 24 days in a month, the monthly income could have been taken at the rate of Rs.600/- and after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenditure, the dependency ought to have been taken at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. 6. Therefore, by applying multiplier of 5, the compensation payable will be (Rs.400/- x 12 x 5) Rs.24,000/-. 7. There is a justification in the criticism of Mr.Mendon that at the relevant time interest at the rate of 12% p.a. ought to have been awarded considering the fact that the claim petition was of the year 1983 which was decided in the year 1990. However, subsequently the rates of interest have been : 4 : reduced by the Apex Court to 9% per year and thereafter at the rate of 7.5%. Therefore, I am inclined to grant interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of the Award of the Tribunal and for the further period, interest will be at the rate of 9% p.a. The compensation awarded for loss of consortium etc. is Rs.10,000/- which cannot be disturbed. 8. Hence, I pass the following order :- "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "O R D E R" (a). The impugned Judgment and Award is modified and the modified Award will read thus : "the claim is partly allowed. The opponent Nos.2 and 4 shall jointly and severally pay to the applicants compensation of Rs.34,000/- inclusive of no fault liability together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till 31st December, 1990 and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 31st December, 1990 till the date of the realization. The claimants will be entitled to the proportionate costs of the claim petition." : 5 : (b). The 2nd and 4th respondents will pay proportionate costs of the Appeal to the appellants. (c). Time of four months is granted to comply with the modified Award. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]