1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 599 OF 1994 1. Smt. Lilabai Pundalik Kasar, Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Nil, 2. Deelip Pundalik Kasar, Age : 16 Years, Occu. : Student, 3. Pramod Pundalik Kasar, Age : 14 Years,Occu. : Nil, 4. Priya Pundalik Kasar, Age : 10 Years, 5. Satish Pundalik Kasar, Age : 7 Years, Occu. : Nil., Appellant Nos. 2 to 5 minors U/G of Smt. Lilabai P. Kasar, All R/o Soagaon, Tq. Soagaon, Dist. Aurangabad. .. .. Appellants Versus 1. Shaikh Navab Shaikh Emmam Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Kaigaon, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 2. Balu Sahebrao Gawade, Age : Major, Occu. : Driver, 2 R/o C/o Vinayak D. Kapare, At Post Nazare Supa, Tq. Purandar, Dist. Pune. 3. Vinayak D. Kapare, Age : Major, Occu. : Business, R/o At Post Nazare Supa, Tq. Purandar, Dist. Pune. 4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ahmednagar Branch, Ahmednagar. 5. Laxman Bhaurao Jagtap, Age : Major, Occu. : Business, R/o Ward No. 7, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. .. .. Respondents Shri N. B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Appellants. None present for respondents. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATE : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2010. JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Suryawanshi for appellants. None for the respondents though served. The present appeal is preferred by the original claimants against the judgment and award dated 30th November, 1993 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No. 289/1987. 3 2. Few facts of the matter are as under : On 21st March, 1986, the deceased Pundalik Madhav Kasar husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 to 5 was travelling in a jeep No. MXT-2051 from Nagar side to Aurangabad. At that time accident took place with Truck No. MTO-5407 coming from the opposite direction. In the said accident Puldalik Madhav Kasar died. Thereafter, appellants/original claimants filed claim petition before Tribunal at Ahmednagar claiming compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-. 3. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was employed as Secretary in Haibatpur Vikas Vividh Karyakari Seva Society, Haibatpur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad and he was getting salary of Rs. 600/- per month. At the time of accident he was 36 years old. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- including loss of care, love and affection to the appellants. The Trial Court considered the dependency of appellant at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and multiplier of 12 years and granted total compensation of Rs. 57,600/-. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that the Trial Court failed to consider multiplier at the time of calculation of compensation payable to appellants. The Trial 4 Court should have calculated the compensation on the basis of multiplier of 16 as stated in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submits that the Trial Court has not considered the future prospects of the deceased at the time of calculating the compensation. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that the Trial Court has not awarded any compensation to the appellants for the loss of care, love and affection. On all these grounds, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the appellants are entitled compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/-. 5. It is to be noted that for the purpose of proving the salary of deceased, appellant examined P.W. - 2 Hirachandra Shriniwas Mulate. P.W. 2 who was working as accountant with Aurangabad District Supervision Co-operative Society from 1976. He stated that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 407/- per month. To that effect he produced documentary evidence on record. Considering the evidence of P.W. 2 it is crystal clear that the deceased was getting salary to the tune of Rs. 407/- per month. On the basis of this, the Trial Court has taken dependency at Rs. 400/- per month i. e. near about entire salary. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants that the Tribunal has not 5 taken dependency more than Rs. 400/- per month. 6. The second submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants about multiplier is also not tenable because the appellant No. 1 in her evidence nowhere stated the age of her father-in-law, mother-in-law or the family members of deceased. For want of any evidence on record it is not possible to accept the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants. The Apex Court in the matter of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shanti Devi and others reported in 2009 (2) SCALE page 168 considered the multiplier of 11 as proper in respect of deceased of 45 years of old. In similar way the Apex Court considered the multiplier of 13 for awarding compensation in a matter where deceased was 32 years, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bindu and others reported in 2009(2) SCALE page 215. In the present case Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier at 12 years. About the future prospect of deceased, there is no evidence on record. Therefore, that cannot be considered for awarding higher compensation. 7. The last submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant about awarding compensation to 6 the appellants under the head of loss of care, love and affection to the children on the death of their father. It is crystal clear from the judgment and award passed by Tribunal that, Tribunal has not considered at all awarding of compensation under these heads. The Tribunal awarded the compensation only on the basis of multiplier. The respondent No. 5 was just four months old when he lost his father/Pundalik The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were of 9 and 4 years of age respectively and appellant No. 4 was 3 years old when Pundalik met with death. Considering their age and age of appellant No. 1, Tribunal should have granted some compensation to them towards loss of care, love and affection. It is true that there could not be any measurement for awarding the compensation on this head. It varies upon matter to matter. At the time of awarding compensation under these heads, Court has to award the same on the basis of guess work only. Therefore, considering the age of the appellants at the time of the accident, when they lost their father/husband, I find that the sum of Rs. 20,000/- would be the just and proper compensation on those heads. The Tribunal apportioned the liability to pay the compensation between the respondent No. 1/original opponent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4/original opponents Nos. 2 to 4 in equal ration. I therefore, direct that the appellants shall be paid additional sum of Rs. 20,000/- by the 7 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to 4 in equal share on account of loss of care, love and affection. 8. In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are entitled to additional compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 6.50% per annum from the date of petition i. e. from 12th November, 1986 till the realization. The respondent No. 1 is liable to pay half of Rs. 20,000/- i. e. Rs. 10,000/- with interest and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- with interest. 8. The judgment and award passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ahmednagar dated 30th November, 1993, is modified to the extent, stated above. [ K. K. TATED, J. ] bsb/Nov. 10