:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1406 OF 2008 1. Smt. Renuka Ramnath & ors. ..Appellants Vs. 1. Shri Chandrakant Balaram Patil and anr. ..Respondents Mrs. S.V. Sonawane for appellants. Mr. V.N. Sagare for respondent no.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.B. BHOSALE,JJ. MARLAPALLE & D.B. BHOSALE,JJ. MARLAPALLE & D.B. BHOSALE,JJ. Reserved Reserved Reserved on on on : July 18, 2008. : July 18, 2008. : July 18, 2008. Pronounced Pronounced Pronounced on: on: on: July 24, 2008. July 24, 2008. July 24, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mrs. Sonawane the learned counsel for the appellants - original claimants. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mumbai on 21/4/2007 thereby allowing Application No. 2535 of 1995. The deceased Shri V. Ramnath was the husband of Claimant No.1 and the son of Claimant No.4. Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased and Claimant No.1. The accident had taken place on :2: 15/1/1995 on Mumbai - Goa road near village Pallav, Taluka - Panvel and the deceased was driving a car bearing Registration No.MMF - 4933. It appears that the Truck bearing Registration No. MWT - 6586 came from the opposite direction (on the wrong side of the road) and dashed the car. The deceased was at the relevant time serving as Cost Accountant and Chartered Accountant and was a partner of M/s. Chanbhoy Jassobhoy, Mumbai. 2. The Claimants had contended before the Tribunal that the yearly income of the deceased was Rs.10,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was claimed by way of compensation. By the impugned award the Tribunal has granted the compensation of Rs.70,29,000/- inclusive of the amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 towards the no fault liability. In addition, interest at 7.5% p.a. has been awarded from the date of filing of the application till its realisation. The original opponent no.2 - Insurer had filed F.A. No. 1405 of 2008 which has been dismissed in limine by us on 16/7/2008. :3: 3. In this appeal by the Claimants two main issues were argued in support of the challenge to the impugned award, namely, (a) the calculation of yearly income of the deceased and (b) the multiplier of 13. . It was submitted that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future increase in the annual income of the deceased and the multiplier ought to have been taken at 16 as he was between the age group of 35 to 40 years. 4. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, for the period from 1/4/1992 to 31/1/1993, his income was Rs.1,20,000/- as per the evidence of Shri A.K. Kotwal (Exh.19). His other income was Rs.5,400/- plus Rs.14,305/-. Therefore, the total income for the year 1992-93 came to Rs.1,39,705/-. After deducting the professional tax and the income tax, his net income came to Rs.86,156/-. His income in the firm (being the share of profit in the partnership firm) was Rs.75,233/-. Thus, after the :4: total deduction of taxes, the annual income came to Rs.1,60,389/-. . In the next year i.e. 1993-94, the income from his salary, after deducting the taxes, came to Rs.82,199/- and from the profit of the partnership firm, it was Rs.3,03,273/-, thus making a total income of Rs.3,85,472/-. For the subsequent financial year i.e. 1994-95 (upto 15/1/1995), the income in the same manner came to Rs.6,52,848/-. The Tribunal also gave the benefits of future rise in the income and, therefore, the Tribunal fixed the average income of the deceased at Rs.8,0,000/- p.a. In our order dated 16/7/2008 dismissing First Appeal No. 1405 of 2008 we have upheld this finding and we reconfirm the same, as it is evident the income so fixed is on the basis of the evidence of Shri Kotwal (PW 2) 5. On the issue of multiplier, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma :5: Thomas (Mrs.) and ors. [(1994) 2 SCC 176] [(1994) 2 SCC 176] [(1994) 2 SCC 176] and more particularly the following observations in para 17:- "17. The multiplier represents the number of years’ purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalised. Take for instance a case where annual loss of dependency is Rs.10,000. If a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is invested at 10% annual interest, the interest will take care of the dependency, perpetually. The multiplier in this case works out to 10. If the rate of interest is 5% per annum and not 10% then the multiplier needed to capitalise the loss of the annual dependency at Rs.10,000 would be 20. Then the multiplier, i.e. the number of years’ purchase of 20 will yield the annual dependency perpetually. Then allowance to scale down the multiplier would have to be made taking into account the uncertainties of the future, the allowances for immediate lump sum payment, the period over which the dependency is to last being shorter and the :6: capital feed also to be spent away over the period of dependency is to last etc. Usually in English Courts the operative multiplier rarely exceeds 16 as maximum. This will come down accordingly as the age of the deceased person or that of the dependants (whichever is higher) goes up." 6. In the instant case the deceased had crossed the age of 35. The Tribunal held that 1/3rd of the annual income would be required to be deducted towards personal expenses from Rs.8,00,000/- p.a. Thus the loss to the family came to Rs.5,32,000/-. Fixing of multiplier cannot be solely dependent on the age group as has been stated in the schedule under Section 163-A of the Act. It would be necessary to consider the other factors like the dependency of the entire family on the sole income of the deceased, number of members of the family and the dependents as well. In the instant case, the Claimant No.1 i.e. Smt. Renuka Ramnath has admitted before the Tribunal in her cross-examination that she was employed as Senior Executive with the ICICI Bank on a monthly salary of :7: Rs.1,00,000/- and it is, therefore, clear that the Claimant No.1 was earning more than the deceased. In such a case if the Tribunal has fixed the multiplier at 13, we do not find any error in the same and while dismissing F.A. No. 1405 of 2008 we have upheld the multiplier fixed at 13. 7. On a query made by us regarding the disbursement of the awarded amount and as to why the total amount should not be invested in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank, the Claimant No.1 appeared before us and filed an affidavit. She has pointed out the expenses required for the education of both the children as well as her expertise as an investment banker. She is presently holding the post of Managing Director and CEO of ICICI Venture. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Claimant No.1 is a well known investment banker and, therefore, we do not find any case to interfere with the apportionment of the awarded amount as made by the Tribunal. 8. As we have dealt with both the issues advanced :8: in this appeal and confirmed their findings recorded by the Tribunal, this appeal must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (B.H.Marlapalle,J.) (B.H.Marlapalle,J.) (B.H.Marlapalle,J.)