1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1257 OF 1998 Mrs.Muktaben T. Patel & Ors. ....Appellant V/s. Shaileshbhai G. Barot & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Swapnil Bangur i/b Ms.U.M. Jhaveri for the Appellant. Mr.S. Vidyarthi for Respondent No.5. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATE : 8TH MAY, 2009. P.C. : 1. This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 arises from the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Thane under M.A.C. No.355 of 1987. The claim was partly allowed and as against the claim of Rs.40.00 lacs with interest at 12% p.a., the Tribunal was pleased to grant an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- inclusive of no faulty liability and with interest from the date of claim i.e. 9.9.1987 till its realization. The claimants were not happy with the compensation granted by the Tribunal and hence this appeal for enhancement. 2. The Tribunal noted that the deceased was a temporary 2 labourer working with some companies in U.S.A. as and when such jobs were available on weekly basis. He was a green card holder and in addition to his wife,he had three children dependent on him. The age of the deceased was 38 years, whereas the age of his wife is 36 years at the relevant time. The eldest child was 17 years of age and the youngest was 13 years of age. The deceased was born on 23.10.1949. The incomes brought on record indicate that he had for some time worked for three different employers. With Comet company, he had received three different payments viz. $ 125, $ 150 and $ 125 respectively for three different weeks, whereas in BASF Corporation, he was paid $ 199 for 14 days, $ 243 for 7 days, $ 315 for 7 days, $ 244 for 7 days, $ 241 for 6 days, $ 158 for 7 days, $ 247 for 7 days and $ 206 for 7 days. He had also worked with Wang Laboratories and the payments received from the same are as under :- The deceased was paid in Wang Laboratories $ 388 (6 days), $ 388 (6 days), $ 326 (6 days), $ 400 (5 days), $s 381 (5 days), $ 253 (6 days), $ 331 (6 days), $ 259 (6 days), $ 373 (6 days), $ 315 (6 days), $ 317 (6 days), $ 281 (6 days), $ 303 (6 days), $ 325 (6 days), $ 287 (6 days), $ 379 (6 days), $ 237 (6 days) and $ 345 (6 days). These figures indicate that the deceased was not in continuous, steady employment and he was getting jobs as and when the work was available. The Tribunal referred therefore to 3 the Fair Labour Standards Act and accepted the weekly earnings at $ 200 of the deceased. Thus the monthly earnings were fixed at $ 800. The annual income consequently came to be fixed at $ 9600. By referring to the case of Vijay Chopra and others vrs. Udham Singh & Ors. (1989) ACJ 589, the Tribunal gave a deduction of 50% of the annual income towards the family maintenance expenses keeping in mind the cost of living in USA and fixed the dependency of $ 4800. The claimants had stated in the application that the conversion rate for $ 1 was Rs.12.5. The multiplier was fixed at 10 keeping in mind that the age of the deceased was of 38 at the relevant time, that his wife and three children were his dependents and his jobs were only on a temporary basis. 3. The learned counsel for the Appellant has raised three issues namely :- (a). The conversion rate of the dollar ought to be as per the rate prevailing on the date of the award i.e. February, 1996 ; (b). The multiplier has not been properly fixed and it ought to have been higher. (c). The income of the deceased has not been properly calculated. 4. In support of the rate of exchange, the learned counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Forasol vrs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission., AIR 1984 SC 241 4 and Oil &Natural Gas Commission vrs. McClellan Engineers S.A., 2007(1) Bom.C.R. 66 and submitted that in February, 1996 the exchange rate for one dollar was Rs.35/- and therefore, the compensation amount ought to have been fixed as per that rate. We have noted that in the appeal memo, the rate claimed is Rs.30/- for one dollar. 5, Mr.Vidyarthi, the learned counsel for the insurance company on the other hand relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors. 2002, ACJ 1441 = (2002) 6 SCC 281. Paragraph 40 of the said decision reads as under :- 40. The next point which remains to be considered is in relation to the exchange rate of the dollar in rupee. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the exchange rate of the dollar at Rs.30. The learned Single Judge allowed it at the then current rate of Rs.47. The Division Bench restored the exchange rate at Rs.30 observing that the matter was closed since the claimants had withdrawn the amount as awarded by the Tribunal and the matter was now on the second stage relating to enhanced amount of compensation. Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently urged that it is only the current rate which should be allowed since the value of the rupee has fallen in exchange of dollar after the application for claim was made and award was given. Therefore, the amount of rupees as arrived at the exchange rate of Rs.47 should be allowed. In connection with this submission about rate of conversion, a reference to the case Forasol v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission has been made. This Court held that rate of conversion as on the date of passing of the decree should be taken on 5 the basis of which conversion should be allowed. We however find that the facts in that case are different. According to the contract itself, a part of the payment was to be made in French currency. The question then arose as to what rate of conversion should be allowed. The Court was of the view that there would be three relevant dates for the purpose, namely, the date on which the amount became payable, the date of the filing of the suit and the date of the judgment and it was further held that it would be fairer to both the parties to take the latest of these dates, namely, the date of passing the decree as the relevant date for applying the conversion rate. In the present case, since the deceased was an American citizen, settled there and income accrued to him in America in terms of dollars, details of income etc. have been given in dollars but so far as the prayer for passing a decree is concerned, it was for a sum indicated in rupees, which figure was arrived at by the claimants applying Rs.30 as the conversion rate. Therefore, in the present case there is no such dispute as to what rate of conversion was to be applied. As a matter of fact, whatever rate may have been applied by the claimants, the fact remains that the decree in terms of rupees specified for a sum of Rs.54 crores was prayed for. In terms of the prayer, whatever amount in rupees was found to be payable to the claimants was decreed. In the present case the exchange rate of dollar against rupee was relevant for the purpose of arriving at a fair assessment of the loss of the dependency of the claimants at the relevant time. In such a situation we are of the view that no such question as in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission is involved. The claim was for a definite sum in terms of rupees, a part of which was found admissible which amount was decreed. There is no occasion to convert the amount of decree in rupees into dollars applying Rs.30 as rate of conversion and then reconvert it in rupees at the rate of Rs.47. The claimants cannot ask for more than what was prayed for in the claim petition. We are therefore not inclined to accede to the request made for calculation of the amount of award at the conversion rate of Rs.47. 6 The earlier decision in the case of Forasol was referred to in this judgment. We are satisfied that in the instant case, the law laid down in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) is applicable. (a). The claims set out in the claim petition was in terms of rupees as it evident from paragraph 22 read with the prayer in the claim petition. (b). The accident had taken place in India and the compensation claim was raised against the vehicle owner and its insurer. The vehicle was registered in India, the insurer is in India and therefore the claim ought to be in terms of rupees. 6. So far as the multiplier of 10 is concerned, it is well settled that there is no hard and fast rule regarding the same. It depends on a variety of factors for capitalization of the compensation amount. His dependents were his widow and three children. The children however were not very young. He was 38 years of age with no fixed employment. We therefore, do not find any error in fixing the multiplier in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 7. So far as the weekly income of the deceased is concerned, as noted earlier, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the definite earnings which were brought on record and noted that he was getting the employment as and when it was available. Though he was a beneficiary of the social security, no 7 evidence was placed on record regarding the quantum of the weekly or monthly benefit available under the said scheme. Therefore the reasonable estimate arrived at by the Tribunal in fixing the weekly income at $ 200 cannot be faulted. 8. In the premises, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. But with no order as to costs. (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)