1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 621 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CAF/664/2009 AND CAF/2582/2009 The Oriental Assurance co Ltd, .. Appellants Vs 1. Kusum Vilas Patil and ors .. Respondents Mr. S.S.Vidhyarthi, Advocate for the appellants. Mrs. P.B.Walimbe i/b Mr Bhushan A Walimbe, for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & R.Y.GANOO,JJ. DATE : 29/01/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the record and the evidence including the documents to which our attention was specifically invited by learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Mr Vidhyarthi, learned counsel for the appellants- Insurance Company, at the outset, submitted that he has instructions to press this appeal only against the finding of the T 2 Tribunal in respect of the quantum of compensation. He invited our attention to the salary certificate of the deceased and submitted that his take-home salary was Rs.7000/- and some odd, and not Rs.12,000/- as held by the Tribunal. We have perused the salary certificate and, in our opinion, the submission of Mr Vidhyarthi is devoid of any merits. The deceased was teacher, working with Rayat Shikshan Sanstha. According to P.W.1 – Kusum Patil, his monthly pay was Rs. 14,295/- and that he also had income from their agricultural land. His total income from the salary and the agriculture, according to P.W.1, was about two lakhs per annum. The salary certificate of the deceased clearly shows that his income was more than Rs.12000/-. The salary certificate, to which our attention was invited, does not show any deduction towards income-tax. In view thereof, Mr Vidhyarthi submitted that the figure of take home salary after deduction towards income tax, society and provident fund, in any case, would not be Rs. 12000/-. When we specifically asked Mr Vidhyarthi as to how much amount should have been deducted from the salary towards income tax, he submitted that it would be about Rs. 500/- per month. Even after deducting this amount from the total, as seen from the salary certificate, the take home salary of the deceased would be Rs.12,000/-. In our view, the Tribunal 3 has not committed any error in holding that the net monthly income of the deceased was Rs.12000/-, and after deducting one-third therefrom, it was held that he was spending Rs.8000/- for his family. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the deceased also had agricultural land of three acres and he was getting some income from the agricultural land also. 3. Mr. Vidhyarthi then invited our attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd Vs. S Rajapriya and others, 2005 ACJ 1441 and submitted that the Tribunal, in the present case, has wrongly applied multiplier of 13. On the other hand, Ms Walimbe, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. We have perused both the judgments and more particularly paragraphs 41 and 42 thereof. The age of the deceased was 47. The Supreme Court in this judgment has clearly held that the multiplier of 13 is appropriate for the age group of 46-50. Having regard to the observations made by the Supreme court in this judgment, in our opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in applying the multiplier of 13 in the present 4 case keeping in view the age of the deceased. In the circumstances, we find no merits in the appeal. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. The civil applications are also disposed of. The amount of Rs.25000/-, deposited by the Insurance company under section 173, is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal. (R.Y.Ganoo,J.) (D. B. Bhosale, J.)