1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 769 OF 1994 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, ) Gokhale Road, Naupada, Dist. Thane. ).. Appellant Vs 1. Mrs. Hajera Ibrahim, aged 20 years, ) 2. Master Mohammed Iqbal Ibrahim, ) aged about 6 years, Minor, ) The Respondent No.2 being minor, ) through his mother and next friend ) applicant No.1 residing at Bombay ) Stores, Santoshi Mata Nagar, Near ) Railway Colony, Kurla (East), ) Bombay – 400 024. ) 3. Messrs Pushpam Travels, ) Tulsiwadi, Tardeo, Bombay- 400 034. ).. Respondents -- Smt. Anita A. Agarwal for the Appellant. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : . The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant are already heard. As none appeared for the 1st and the 2nd Respondents yesterday, the Appeal was kept today. Today also, none appears for the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. 2. By this Appeal, the Appellant insurer has taken an exception to a judgment and award dated 28th April, 1994 passed by the learned 2 Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane, in a Claim Petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The 1st and 2nd Respondents are the original Claimants who claimed compensation on account of death of one Ibrahim Mohammed in a motor accident on 25th November, 1986. The 3rd Respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the Appellant is the insurer of the vehicle. The Claim Petition was contested by the Appellant by contending that on the date of the accident, the offending bus which was owned by the 3rd Respondent was not insured with the Appellant. The Tribunal rejected the contention on the basis of the evidence. After holding the driver of the offending bus negligent, the Tribunal proceeded to award compensation of Rs.3,95,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal. She submitted that the documentary evidence was produced by the Appellant in support of the contention that on the relevant date, there was no valid insurance. She submitted that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the dependency of the 1st and 2nd Respondents will have to be taken at Rs.1,500/- per month is without any basis. She submitted that the multiplier of 20 applied is on the higher side. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The 1st question to be decided is as regards the existence of valid insurance. The 3 Appellant examined one Shri Vasant Mondkar. He was an officer working as Branch Manager at Ballard Estates at Bombay. He deposed that the claim number of the policy in question was 86/34 and the Policy Number is 86/92 which is in the name of the 3rd Respondent. He deposed that the offending bus was validly insured on 25th November, 1996. Placing reliance on a copy of the premium register and a copy of the policy (Exhibit – 60/1 and 60/2, respectively), he stated that the liability of the Appellant was limited to Rs. 50,000/-. Perusal of the cross-examination shows that what is produced at Exhibit-60/2 is neither a true copy of the original nor a carbon copy thereof. The witness admitted that he had not brought the original policy register before the Court. He specifically admitted that the copy produced at Exhibit-60/2 is neither a copy of the original policy nor a copy from the original policy book. He admitted that the copy of the policy was prepared without referring to the original document for the purposes of showing that the liability was limited. Considering the aforesaid statements made in the cross-examination, the learned Member of the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the evidence of the said witness. Thus, a true copy of policy was not produced by the Appellant to show that the liability was restricted to Rs.50,000/-. However, insurance was admitted. 5. Now, turning to the quantum of compensation, the age of the deceased was 26 years. The widow of the deceased (i.e. The 1st Respondent) stepped into the witness box and stated that the deceased was running a grocery shop. A licence of the grocery shop was produced at 4 Exhibit-26. She also produced on record a registration certificate thereof under Shops and Establishments Act at Exhibit-68. Her case is that the deceased used to pay her a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month for household expenses. She stated that after the demise of her husband, the shop was closed for two years. Thereafter, she had let out the said shop and was getting Rs.300/- per month by way of rent. The Tribunal referred to the fact that the widow of the deceased stated that she used to stay at native place and the husband used to send her money orders. The 1st Respondent could not produce the money order coupons. The Tribunal however observed that she was not expected to retain the money order coupons. The said observation is correct. The certificates produced on record prove that the deceased was running a grocery shop. The accident took place in the year 1986 and the age of the deceased at that time was only 26 years. With the passage of time, there is bound to be some increase in the income from grocery business. Considering all these aspects, the dependency taken by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month cannot be said to be unreasonable. 6. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 20. Considering the fact that the age of the deceased was 17 years, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., [(2009)6 SCC 121 ], the multiplier could not have exceeded 17. Therefore, yearly dependency comes to Rs.18,000/- and if the multiplier of 17 is applied, the compensation amount would come to Rs. 5 3,06,000/-. To that, usual amount of Rs.15,000/- will have to be added. Thus, the compensation payable is Rs.3,21,000/-. To that extent, the Appeal will have to be partly allowed and hence I pass following order. (a) The impugned judgment and award is modified and the compensation amount is fixed at Rs.3,21,000/- instead of Rs.3,95,000/-. Rest of the award is maintained. (b) The Appeal is partly allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. (c) The office remark shows that the amounts deposited by the Appellant in this Court have been invested in a fixed deposit. The said amounts along with interest accrued thereon shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. The concerned Tribunal after hearing the parties will pass appropriate order as regards disbursement and/or withdrawal of the said amounts. (A.S.OKA, J) ash