1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1347 OF 1996 Lilawati C. Jagtap & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Santosh T. Gaikwad & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.U.B.Nighot for the appellants. Mr.M.A.Utagikar for respondent No.1. Mr.D.R.Mahadik i/by Mr.S.R.Singh for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 3rd March 2010. JUDGMENT: . The appellants who are the claimants in a claim petition under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 have preferred this appeal claiming enhancement in compensation granted under the impugned judgment and award. The appellants are 1st to 3rd claimants and 3rd and 4th respondents are the 4th and 5th claimants. The 1st claimant is the widow of the deceased Chandrakant. The 2nd and 3rd claimants are minor children of the deceased and the 4th and 5th claimants are the parents of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal is that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle owned by the 1st respondent which was admittedly insured with the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the 2 application. It is not in dispute that liability of the 2nd respondent was restricted at that time to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is not necessary to go into the aspect of negligence as there is no challenge to the award by any of the respondents. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants invited my attention to the evidence on record and submitted that the Tribunal has committed gross error by taking dependency at only Rs.400/- per month. He pointed out that the fact that the widow of the deceased has let out three rooms and is earning Rs.600/- by way of rent is not relevant for purposes of computation of compensation. He submitted that the evidence on record shows that his net income must not be less than Rs.3000/- per month. He, therefore, submitted that multiplicand taken is on the lower side. He submitted that multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that there is no documentary evidence of income of the deceased and therefore the dependency taken at the rate of Rs.400/- per month is more than reasonable and no interference is called for. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent pointed out that liability of the 2nd respondent is restricted to Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The widow of the deceased stepped into witness box. She stated that her husband was working as a contractor of a company. She pointed out that the deceased used to take contract of casting operations and used to take labour 3 contracts. The widow stated that the deceased was working as a contractor of Ojas Engineering Pvt. Ltd and his monthly income was Rs.2000/- to Rs. 2500/-. The widow stated that the deceased used to give her Rs.1600/- to Rs.1700/- per month. The claimants examined one Nandkumar who was director of Ojas Engineering Pvt Ltd. He produced on record a certificate showing that the deceased was working as a contractor of the said company for eight to ten years. He stated that on an average the monthly bills of the deceased used to be Rs.14,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. In the cross-examination he stated that about 13 to 14 workers were working with the deceased. 4. The Tribunal referred to admission of the widow that the deceased used to spent Rs.800/- per month on himself and parents. The Tribunal considered that the widow was receiving monthly rent of Rs.600/-. Considering all these aspects the Tribunal has taken dependency only at Rs. 400/- per month. 5. The evidence of the second witness examined by the claimants shows that the deceased used to get bill amount of Rs.14,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. It has come on record that deceased was required to employ workers and the aforesaid amounts received by the deceased were the gross receipts. As far as quantum of the bills is concerned, there is hardly any cross-examination of the witness Nandkumar. After deducting substantial amount towards expenditure of salaries of workers and other expenses , the net monthly income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.1200/-. After 4 deducting 1/3rd amount on account of personal expenses, the dependency comes to Rs.800/- and yearly dependency at Rs.9600/-. Age of the deceased was 35 years. Therefore, multiplier of 16 will have to be applied in view of decision of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121]. Applying multiplier of 16 the compensation amount comes to Rs.1,53,600/- to which usual amount of Rs.15,000/- will have to be added. Thus, the compensation amount comes to Rs.1,68,600/-. Therefore, the appellants and 4th and 5th respondents are entitled to enhancement of Rs.88,600/-. The claim petition is of the year 1986. Thereafter, there have been fluctuations in the rate of interest of fixed deposits of the nationalized banks. In recent past the rates have been considerably reduced. Therefore, on enhanced amount, interest will have to be granted at the rate of 9% per annum. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) In addition to the compensation awarded under the impugned award, the appellants and 3rd and 4th respondents will be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.88,600/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit of the said amount with the Tribunal. (b) It is clarified that liability of the 2nd respondent insurer is limited to Rs.1,50,000/- with interest thereon. Rest of the award including the interest is maintained. 5 (c) Appeal is partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (d) Time of four months is granted to 1st and 2nd respondents to comply with the modified award. (e) After the additional compensation amount is deposited with the Tribunal, the learned Member of the Tribunal will pass appropriate order of disbursement/investment of the additional amount of compensation. (A.S.OKA,J)