-1- 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.1405 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1123 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1405 OF 2008 New India Assurance Co.Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Smt.Renuka Ramnath & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.V.N.Sagare for the appellant. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane for respondent no.1. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATED : 16th July, 2008 DATED : 16th July, 2008 DATED : 16th July, 2008. PC: PC: PC: . Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai on 21.4.2007 thereby allowing Application No.2535 of 1995. The appeal is filed by the insurer. The learned Member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was 35 years of age on the date of demise i.e. 15.1.1995 and his average future income was Rs.8,00,000/- and as submitted by the insurance company multiplier was adopted at 13. Thus, the total loss to the family has been calculated at Rs.69,29,000/-. The loss of expectation of life has been calculated at Rs.50,000/- and loss of consortium and loss of love and affection has been -2- calculated at Rs.50,000/- thereby taking the total compensation at Rs.70,29,000/-. 3. From the above it is clear that two issues were raised by the insurer opposing the claim application. The first one was regarding the income of the deceased and it was contended that the Income Tax returns at Exhibit-37 for the assessment year 1995-96 and the second issue was regarding multiplier at 13 instead of 16. The Tribunal accepted the Insurance company’s contention to adopt multiplier of 13, however, on the first issue it did not agree with the submissions made by the insurance company. 4. The learned counsel for the insurer before us has, therefore, advanced his arguments only on the issue of yearly income of the deceased. He submitted that deceased died on 15.1.1995 and the Income Tax returns for the assessment year 1995-96 at Exhibit-37 was filed on 20.6.1995 and, therefore, this return did not reflect the real income of the deceased. The tribunal noted that net income shown in the returns at Exhibit-37 was Rs.80,850/- and for the assessment year 1994-95 the net income was shown to be Rs.82,199/-. Thus the net income of the deceased for the assessment year 1995-96 was shown to be less than his net income for the earlier assessment year. The loss of future income was calculated at Rs.8,00,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd of the personal expenses -3- from Rs.8,00,000/- the loss to the family was calculated at Rs.5,33,000/- and on that basis the compensation is fixed at Rs.69,29,000/- with multiplier of 13. 5. The impugned order is well reasoned and well supported by the documentary evidence and, therefore, challenge to the said award at the instance of the insurer is devoid of merits. We have also noted that the future interest has been granted at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of realisation and this rate of interest is also reasonable. Hence we do not find any reason to entertain this appeal and the same must fail at the threshold. 6. The appeal is dismissed in limine. 7. Civil application is also disposed off. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)