1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE First Appeal No.605 of 2009 With Civil Application No.633 of 2009 The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Appellant Vs. Shri Rasiklal D. Mehta & ors. Respondents Mr.V.N.Sagare for appellant. Mr.T.J.Mendon for Resp.nos.3 and 5. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.J.VAZIFDAR,JJ. April 23, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1. We have heard Mr. Sagare, the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer. This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) arises from the common award dated 31st March 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Palghar in M.A.C.P. Nos.478, and 487 to 491 of 2001. The present respondent nos. 1 to 5 were the original claimants in M.A.C.P. No.489 of 2001 and they have been granted compensation of Rs.9,96,510/- including the No Fault liability with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation of the entire amount. 2. Respondent no.6 is the owner of Maruti Van 2 No.MH-03-B-1560, whereas the respondent no.7 is the owner of truck bearing Registration No.MHB 6578. Respondent no.8 had insured the said truck whereas the present appellant had insured Maruti Van No.MH 03 B-1560. On 14/7/1992 the said Maruti van was going towards Bhillad in Gujarat State on Mumbai Ahmedabad National Highway and when it had reached village Manor, it collided with truck at about 8.30 a.m. and in the said accident except Hemang Mehta and Bhadraben Mehta all other inmates of the van died due to the injuries sustained. As per the claimants the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles as they did not take into consideration the traffic on the road and the nature of the road and the Maruti van car was driving at a very high speed. On or about 26/11/1992 claim petitions were filed before the Accident Claims Tribunal. Though the appellant had contested the claims, it did not file an application under Section 170 of the Act to contest the claim on merits and on all points. 3. The Tribunal after perusing the pleadings and the evidence adduced before it has allowed all the claims partly and this appeal concerns, as noted 3 earlier, to the award passed MACP No.489 of 2001. 4. The challenge to the said award by the present appellant will have to be limited to the issue of quantification of the compensation amount based on the monthly or annual income of the deceased Anil Mehta. Out of the five claimants before the Tribunal Claimant Nos.1, 2 and 4 came to be deleted as they died during the pendency of the claim petition and Ms.Nayna R. Mehta and Master Hemang A. Mehta were the only remaining claimants who contested the claim. 5. The Tribunal noted that the deceased had completed his graduation degree in Technology with honours from IIT, Powai with First Class and at the relevant time was employed with M/s.Gharda Chemicals who had issued a salary certificate showing his monthly salary at Rs.10,000/- per month. The Income Tax returns for the year 1987-88 was also placed on record at Exhibit 31 and it showed the income of the deceased at Rs.99,200/-. If 1/3rd amount was deducted from the said annual income, the balance figure would be Rs.66,134/- so as to calculate the dependency amount for the claimants. The deceased was of the age of 41 years and the Tribunal fixed the multiplier at 4 15. The annual dependency came to Rs.66,134/- x 15 i.e. Rs.9,92,010/-. In addition an amount of Rs.2000/- was granted for funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- for loss of estate. The deceased being a salaried person and with a bright career in technology, there is nothing on record to dispute his annual income of Rs.99,200/- at the time he met with the accident. Though the Income Tax Returns placed on record pertain to the year 1987-88, in fact with the passage of about more than three years his annual income would have gone up and, therefore, we do not consider the multiplier of 15 to be on the higher side. We have perused the record and we are satisfied that the Tribunal did not fall in any error in determining the compensation amount on account of the death of Shri Anil Mehta in the subject accident. 6. Hence this appeal must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed. 7. Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)