: 1 : 1887-09-FA-Judgment.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1887 OF 2009 IN M.A.C.P. NO. 42 OF 2008 1. Prakash Vishnu Potdar Age 65 yrs. Occu. Retired Teacher 2. Mrs. Kamal Prakash Potdar Age 59 yrs. Occu. Housewife, Both R/o. Bhavaninagar, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Now R/o. - Marg No.2, Sawarkar Colony, Vishrambag, Sangli Dist. Sangli. .. Appellants v/s. 1. Grand Oraganics Pvt. Ltd. Owner of Tanker No. GA-01-U-2969, R/o. Margao Goa, 92-26, Bicholim Industrial Estate, Bicholim, Goa State 2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., At Bicholim, Goa North 403504, (Notice to be served on its Branch at Samarat Mansion, Vakharbhag, Dist. Sangli. .. Respondents Mr. Tejpal Ingale for the appellants Mr. P.V. Damodaran for respondent no.1 Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/b M/s. KMC Legal Venture for respondent no.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J DATE : 11th NOVEMBER,2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This First Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award dated 5th : 2 : 1887-09-FA-Judgment.sxw September, 2009 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli in M.A.C.T. Petition No.42 of 2008. The appellants were claimants. It is common ground that their unmarried son Sagar, aged about 23 years old, died in motor accident. It is also common ground that the accident took place on 13th January, 2007 at about 11.15 p.m. on National Highway No.17 in Goa. It is further common ground that tanker bearing No.GA-01-U-2969 belonging to the respondent no.1 was involved in the accident. The deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing No. MH-10-AD-9823. The deceased died on the spot. 2. The appellants/parents of the deceased filed their claim before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli. The respondent no.2 alone opposed the claim by filing a written statement. The learned Member of the Tribunal having regard to the pleadings, framed certain issues and recorded his findings. He held that the appellants had amply proved that the driver of the vehicle belonging to the respondent no.1 was solely responsible for causing the accident and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 is not disputing this aspect of the case. 3. The learned Member thereafter held that since the deceased was a : 3 : 1887-09-FA-Judgment.sxw unmarried son of the claimants, there was no possibility of application of multiplier theory for calculating the amount of compensation. He said that the appellants being parents would not have got priority in the life of the deceased in future had he got married. He, therefore held that the appellants were entitled to a lumpsum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. He has not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The appellants, therefore, came to this Court challenging the quantum of compensation. 4. The only question that requires consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants were entitled to compensation on the basic of multiplier method and to what amount they are entitled to? 5. Both the Counsels appearing for the parties readily conceded that the learned Member had committed error in not applying the multiplier method for calculating compensation. The law is now settled that for calculating compensation, multiplier method is indispensable. The judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 has considered as to how in fatal accident cases compensation : 4 : 1887-09-FA-Judgment.sxw should be assessed and calculated. The Supreme Court held that in addition to compensation under the head of loss of income, the claimants are entitled to certain lumpsums under heads loss of estate, loss of soletium and funeral expenses etc. Cost of transportation of body, if incurred, cost of medical treatment, if incurred etc. In this case since I am calculating the amounts of compensation under the head of loss of income, following discussion is necessary. 6. The evidence shows that the deceased was working as a Sales Executive of a Pharmaceutical Company. He had recently changed his job and was getting roughly 9,000/- to 10,000/- per month as a salary. It seems that he was getting a basis salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and in addition to it, he was getting daily allowances because he was traveling from place to place for propagating sales. It has come in evidence that the employer of the deceased was paying to him in addition to expenses of Rs. 100/- per day as daily allowance. In this scenario of such variable income, the deceased received Rs.9,994/- salary of the last month before his death. Since his income was variable depending on the days he travelled outside headquarter, I am assuming that his average income per month was Rs. 9,000/-. The Supreme Court in the above mentioned case held that in case : 5 : 1887-09-FA-Judgment.sxw of death of salaried person, certain addition is required to be made for future prospects of the deceased. In some cases, such addition was almost 100%. But in this case, I am of the view that the claimants can at the most claim 50% of the monthly salary as addition for future prospect. With this addition, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.13,500/-. Out of this amount, the deduction is required to be made for personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that in the case of a unmarried person, ½ of the income is required to be deducted for personal and living expenses. In view of this, Rs.6,750/- would come as multiplicand. The next question is what multiplier should be selected in this case. The multiplier cannot be fixed on the basis of the age of the deceased because he had left his parents as his dependents so the multiplier should be selected having regard to the age of the dependents. The appellant no.1 father at the time of accident was 67 years old and the appellant no.2 his mother was 61 years old. The average of this comes to about 64 years. Having regard to the life expectancy, I think multiplier of 7 would be suitable. Applying multiplier of 7 to the above mentioned multiplicand, the amount of Rs.5,67,000/- would be the compensation towards loss of income. : 6 : 1887-09-FA-Judgment.sxw 7. In addition to this, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The appellants did not lead any evidence in respect of the expenses they incurred for transporting the dead body from the spot of accident to their native place in District Sangli. Therefore, they are not entitled to any amount towards transportation expenses. The appellants thus, are entitled to Rs.5,77,000/- including compensation towards no fault liability. The appellants are entitled to 9% income from the date of registration of the petition till the amount is realized. The appellants are also entitled to costs of this appeal. The appeal thus is allowed in terms of the above order. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)