1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL No. 602 OF 2010 1] Chaya W/o Sugriv Phad, Age 35 year, Occu. Household. 2] Amol S/o Sugiv Phad, Age 20 year, Occu.Education 3] Madan S/o Sugriv Phad, Age 17 year, Occu. Education Minor Under Guardianship of his mother-Applicant No.1. All Resident of Tharmal Power Station, Thermal Colony, Parli Vaijanath, Tq. Parli Vajanath, Dist. Beed. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS 1] Shaikh Akkil Shaikh Ajij, Age about 45 year, Occu. Business, R/o Peth Mohalla, Parli vaijanath, Tq. Parli Vaijanath, Dist. Beed. 2] The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Latur. .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri R.B. Deshpande, Advocate for appellants Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Shri K.V. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 30th AUGUST, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of parties. 2. Heard, the learned Counsels for the respective parties, the appellants are original claimants. They had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 26 of 2005, before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed, on account of the death of Sugriv, the husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 & 3. 3. It is the case of the applicant, that deceased Sugriv was traveling on motor cycle to his office. The truck bearing RTO registration No. MH 23-1679 gave dash to the motor cycle of the deceased. The deceased came under the truck, and he died on the spot. It was contended that deceased was aged 35 years and he was earning gross salary of Rs. 6776/- per month. The respondent No. 1 owner did not file any written statement. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company 3 resisted the claim of the appellants. 4. The Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the appellants, and directed the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs. 4,54,232/-, including amount under no fault liability with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 5. According to the appellants, the said amount of compensation granted is meager, they had claimed an amount of Rs. Ten lakh. 6. The appellants had produced on record, salary certificate issued by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, showing his salary as Rs. 6676/- per month. The Tribunal has accepted the salary certificate, showing the gross salary of the deceased Sugriv as Rs. 6676/-. But relied on the deductions made therein under various heads, and came to the conclusion that the net salary of the deceased is Rs. 2244/-, as such, taking into consideration the said amount of Rs. 2244/-, as his income from the salary has 4 computed, the amount of compensation payable to claimants. 7. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the Tribunal has not read and appreciated the salary certificate (Exh. 38) in its proper perspective. The deductions regarding quarter rent, credit society, electricity charges, CPF, LIC etc. cannot be left out from the salary. The only deductions permissible would be on account of Professional Tax, Prime Minister Relief Fund, and the Staff Welfare Fund. As such, contended that it was erroneous for the Court to consider such deductions. 8. Per Contra, Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, strenuously opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, and submitted that the deductions which are made are not to be considered, and further contended that salary certificate has not been proved. According to him, the deductions made on the account of 5 quarter rent,Credit Society, CPF are deductions should not be considered in his income. According to him, the Tribunal has rightly computed the amount. 9. With the assistance of learned Counsels for the parties, I have gone through the record and the findings of the Tribunal. The Salary certificate (Exh. 38), clearly shows the total earning /gross salary of the deceased Sugriv to be Rs. 6676/-. The deductions which would be permissible would only be regarding the tax. The deductions towards rent, and the recovery towards advance given to the deceased so also Electricity Charges, LIC deductions will have to be computed in the income. They cannot be deducted from the income, the only permissible deduction would be regarding, the professional tax of Rs. 175/-, Prime Minister Relief Fund of Rs. 153/- and Staff Welfare Fund of Rs. 3/-. The rest of the amounts will have to be included in the income, as such, the income from the salary of deceased Sugriv will have to be considered as Rs. 6310/-. 6 10. The Tribunal has erred in not counting the said deductions in his income, and only considering Rs. 2244/- as his income from salary. Useful Reference can be had to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “ National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Indira Srivastava & others, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 143”. 11. In the light of the same, the appellants income from salary will have to be calculated at Rs. 6310/- per month, 1/3rd of the said amount will have to be deducted towards his own maintenance and 2/3rd of the income would be considered for payment of compensation to the appellants. The 2/3rd amount of Rs. 6310/- would come to Rs. 4207 per month. The multiplier of 16 is applied by the Tribunal, which is correct. As per multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation, which the appellants are entitled from the income of the salary would be Rs. 8,07,774/-. The Tribunal has also awarded the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- towards income from agriculture, the same is not challenged by the respondents. As such, the said amount will be 7 required to be added in the income, which comes to Rs. 9,67,774/-, Rs. 2,000/- is given towards funeral expenses, as such, the total amount would come to Rs. 9,67,774/-, which the appellants are entitled to. The appellants have been granted an amount of Rs. 4,54,232/- by the Court below, which if paid by the respondents would be entitled to be adjusted, as such I have pass the following order. ORDER A. The appeal is allowed. B. It is held that the appellants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs. 9,69,774/- (Rs. Nine lakh sixty nine thousand seven hundred seventy four only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till realization. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,54,232/- (Rs. Four lakh fifty four thousand two hundred thirty two) towards the compensation. The appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,15,512/- (Rs. Five lakh fifteen thousand five hundred twelve). The respondents shall jointly and severally pay said amount to the appellants. The said amount of 8 compensation, will be divided equally among the claimants and accordingly, be paid to them. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 602/2010.