( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 615 OF 2009 1. Laxman Dadu Navgire .. Appellants Age. 53 years, Occ. Agriculture [original claimants] 2. Gangubai Laxman Navgire Age. 49 years, Occ. Household Both residents of village Moha, Tal. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar. Versus 1. Shri H.M. Mudalgi .. Respondents Age. Major, Occ. Business, [original R/o. Hidwadi, Belgaum, opponents] Tal. & Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka State 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Abat Building, Zandigate, Ahmednagar, through its Manager Shri Amol K. Gawli, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 22.06.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. With consent of the parties this matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. The only point to be ( 2 ) considered in this appeal is - "Whether the compensation awarded by the President, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 247 of 2002, decided on 17.12.2008 is just and proper?". No other point is argued before this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted on above point and the matter is taken up for hearing immediately with consent of the parties. 2. Briefly stated, deceased Dinesh was son of both the appellants. The appellants were residing at Moha, Tal. Jamkhed. Deceased Dinesh met with an accident on 28.02.1999 at about 8.15 a.m. at village Borgal on Belgaum-Chikodi road. When deceased Dinesh and other labourers were sitting on the Tipper bearing No. CTG-3401, at that time one truck came from the opposite side. While giving side to the truck, the Tipper driver could not control the vehicle and it fell on its side. It is stated that Dinesh was sending money for maintenance to the appellants and they are entitled for the compensation. They claimed compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. 3. Respondent No. 1 - owner of the vehicle so also respondent No.2 - Insurance Company filed written statement ( 3 ) and denied income of the deceased and loss of income. 4. The Tribunal considered Rs. 1500/- as monthly income of the deceased. So, yearly income was Rs. 18,000/-. Considering the ages of the parents, the average age of the parents was 44, therefore 11 was considered as multiplier. Accordingly, amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- was awarded as compensation, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agonies etc., Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 3000/- for carrying dead body to the village. In all amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- was awarded including the amount of ‘No Fault Liability’. It is this order, which is under challenge. 5. Heard Adv. Shri A.K. Gavali for the appellants and Adv. Shri S.A. Kulkarni for respondent No.1. Adv. Shri Gavali relied upon case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Khimlibai and Others, (2009) 10 S.C.C.648. In that case the deceased was a carpenter. He was getting work for six months and was earning Rs. 100/- per day. It was held that assuming that deceased was working for six months as carpenter and for rest of six months of the year he must be doing agricultural ( 4 ) work and he must be getting Rs. 100/- per day. It is observed in paras 11 and 12 that in the year 1997 the deceased could have comfortably earned Rs. 100/- per day and accordingly the compensation is awarded. 6. Another case cited is Ningamma and Another V/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2009) 13 S.C.C. 710. In that case the Court held that Court is duty bound and entitled to award “just compensation” irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by claimant or not. The learned advocate for the appellants stated that Rs. 100/- ought to have been considered as wages in the year 1999. 7. The third case cited is Bilkish V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Anr., (2008) 4 SCC 259. In that case the deceased was 20 years of age and was a bachelor. Parents were aged 47 and 42 years of age. In that case 12 was considered as proper multiplier. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned advocate for the appellants argued that Rs. 100/- ought to have been considered as daily income and accordingly multiplier ought to have been considered. More compensation ought to have ( 5 ) been awarded as expenses for carrying body from the place of incident to the native place of the deceased. 8. Adv. Shri S.A. Kulkarni for the respondent No.1 stated that the Tribunal has considered income of the deceased mentioned in column five of the petition without questioning it. What was pleaded was accepted by the Tribunal. Something more cannot be presumed by the Court unless it is pointed out that the statement in pleading was erroneous and it was a statement made under some error or mistake. In my considered opinion, when it is not case of the claimants that claim petition contains any wrong statement, the Court should disbelieve it. Even in para 9 it is stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 1500/- per month from labour work. In my opinion, it is not permissible for this Court to go beyond what is pleaded. Absolutely, no evidence is led about actual earnings except oral word of mother and co-labourer, who was also native from same district. So far as multiplier is concerned, it may be noted that in this case in the claim petition, the appellant No.1 was shown to be doing agricultural work and appellant No. 2 was doing house hold work. Moreover, it is also admitted by ( 6 ) A.W.1 Gangubai in her cross-examination that deceased Dinesh was her second son and all her sons were doing labour work. So, the deceased was not sole person on whom the appellants would have been dependent during their old age. There are other sons who are earning and who are there to look after their old parents in their old age. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any error in calculating the multiplier or the dependency. It may also be noted that the deceased was 20 years old, he would have married in near future, had he not died. He would have raised his family and he would not have spent 2/3rd amount for his parents. It is also not shown that more amount was paid for transportation of dead body of the deceased. 10. In view of above, the First Appeal has no merit. The First Appeal stands dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JUN10/fa615.09