1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 176/2004. 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Margao Divisional Office, Jaganath Building, Near Railway Gate, Margao, Goa. (Deleted as per order dated 23.9.2004.) 2. Remedios Vaz, s/o Santan Vaz, r/o H. No. 181, Onalim, Coelim, Cansaulim, Goa. (Driver) 3. Mr. Domingos Francisco Azavedo, r/o Verna Manzil Vado, Salcete, Goa. (Owner) … Appellants. V/s 1. Dr. M. L. Goyal, S/o L. Goyal, Service, residing at New Delhi, represented by his attorney Shri Anant M. Aron, s/o Rajendra Mohan Aron, Businessman, constituted by Power of Attorney executed at Panaji. … Respondents. 2 Shri M. S. Joshi, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F. M. REIS , J. DATE : 22nd October 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 17.2.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa in Claim Petition No. 30/1998.. 2. A Claim Petition was filed by the respondent on the ground that his daughter was walking along the road and proceeding from Sangolda towards Porvorim on 7.8.1997. At that time a Tata Sumo jeep bearing No. GA-02/A-9064 driven by the applicant No. 1 gave a dash to his daughter who since deceased. The said deceased was coming from Sangolda to go to the Defence Colony at Porvorim and was on left hand side of the road. It is further his case that it was drizzling at the relevant time and a scooterist had stood under a tree with his scooter parked facing Porvorim on the left side of the road 3 and on the katcha road. The deceased had crossed the scooterist and moved at a distance of 4 metres when the appellant No. 1 driving the jeep came in a rash and negligent manner at fast speed from Porvorim side and by changing direction from left side facing Calangute came to the extreme right side where she was walking and dashed against her. The said deceased was dragged by the said jeep for some distance and in the process knocked down the scooterist who also fell down and sustained injuries. The deceased girl came under the front left wheel of the vehicle and on account of the impact she died instantaneously. The deceased was 21 years old at the time of her death and she was a student of the school of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi and she had completed the third year of her studies and doing her fourth year and her career prospects were stated to be good. He as such claimed compensation of Rs. 16,55,000/- inclusive of the loss of earnings, dependency, loss of company, mental pain, agony and funeral expenses etc. It is further his case that the deceased had a brilliant academic year and was undergoing compulsory academic training of architecture with Architect Gerald D'Cunha in Goa for a period of 4 months at the relevant time. 3. The appellants denied the case made out by the 4 respondent and denied the accident. The Tribunal after recording of evidence and hearing the parties, awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,75,000/-. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant No. 1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant No. 1 had abstained himself from being examined in the proceedings. After minute examination of the records, the Tribunal found that the appellant No. 1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. I find no infirmity in the said finding of the Tribunal which infact the learned Counsel for the appellant did not even raise any contention that any finding to that effect recorded by the Tribunal is not borne out from record. As such, there can be no doubt that the accident had occurred on account of the fault of appellant No. 1 while driving the jeep, in a rash and negligent manner. 4. Dealing with the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has found that the deceased had a brilliant career as she was in the process of completing her Architecture course. The Tribunal has fixed her earnings at Rs. 5000/- per month and allowed deductions of 1/3rd towards her personal expenses and fixed the compensation at Rs. 7,20,000/- besides a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock, 5 suffering on account of untimely death, besides amount for transportation and funeral expenses. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has totally erred in granting a deduction of 1/3rd of the earnings on account of personal expenses when the law is well settled that when the deceased was a spinster the deduction towards personal expenses is to the extent of 50%. The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in 2009 (4) ALL MR 429 in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., the multiplier to be applied is 11 considering the age of the dependent. The age of the father is stated to be 52 years. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the respondents, I find that the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) has held at para 15 that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut 6 drastically. In the present case the deceased was a spinster and as such, in view of the said judgment of the Apex court, the deductions on account of personal expenses ought to have been 50%. as such the Tribunal was not justified in deducting 1/3rd of the earnings. Infact for applying multiplier, the age of the father is to be considered. The respondent is stated to be of 52 years. The multiplier to be applied in view of the said judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma's case (Supra) in such circumstances is 11. The learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute that as per the said judgment the multiplier applied in the present case ought to be 11. I accordingly find that just multiplier to be applied in the facts of the present proceeding would be 11. The Tribunal as such is not justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 7,20,000/-. Considering the said deductions of 50% and applying multiplier of 11, the amount works out to Rs. 3,30,000/- as fairly calculated by both the learned Counsel. Besides the said amount, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 3290/- towards ticket charges, Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards the pain, shock and suffering. I find no infirmity committed by the Tribunal in awarding the said amounts. The total amount to be awarded as such is Rs. 3,85,290/-. Needless to say that the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the 7 petition till the actual payment after deducting the amount awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6 In view of the above, I pass the following: O R D E R i. The appeal is partly allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 17.2.2004 is modified and the amount payable to the respondent by the appellants is Rs. 3,85,290/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual payment after deducting the amount paid under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with proportionate costs, payable to the respondent. F. M. REIS, J. MF/-