* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 767 OF 2001 1. Smt.Shashikala Tanaji Sawant 2. Pramod Tanaji Sawant. 3. Arvind Tanaji Sawant 4. Nilesh Tanaji Sawant ......Appls/Orig.Applicants V/S. 1. Suresh Laxman Salunkhe 2. The Secretary, M.S.R.T.C. 3. Narayan Khashaba Sawant .....Resps/Orig.Resps ­­­­­­ Mr.M.N.Dhamale, adv.for appellants. Mr.G.S.Hegde with Mr. C.M.Lokesh i/by. M/s.G.S.Hegde & Associates, adv.for respondents. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 12TH NOVEMBER, 2009.\ P.C. :­ 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. The appellants herein who are the claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 362 of 1992 have filed this Appeal to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 27th July, 1995. By the impugned order, the appellants have been awarded * 2 * compensation of Rs.1,20,000/­ with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. According to the appellant, the compensation awarded is not adequate and reasonable and they seek enhancement of the same. 3. The appellants are widow and children of one Tanaji who died in a motor accident on 16th June 1992 involving the bus belonging to respondent no. 2. Respondent no.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent no.3 is the father of Tanaji who has not claimed any share in the compensation payable on account of death of Tanaji. By the impugned judgment and order, the tribunal held that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for the accident in which Tanaji died. This finding stands confirmed as respondents no.1 and 2 have not challenged the same by preferring appeal therefrom. 4. In the above circumstances, the only question that falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal to the appellants is fair, reasonable and adequate compensation. For the reasons stated hereinafter the question is answered in the affirmative. 5. Tanaji was serving in Ajinkya Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana at Shendre and was getting gross salary of Rs.2038.90p per month. According to the appellants, his age was 32 years at the time of the accident. However, the evidence before the court disproves the claim and the birth extract at Exhibit­37 shows that his * 3 * age was 35 years at the relevant time. The age of Tanaji is material for determining the factor of multiplier to be applied for calculating the compensation under Schedule II to Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 20 for purpose when the multiplier applicable under the Schedule is 17. 6. The second factor for calculating the compensation i.e. the multiplicand is derived from the actual annual income of the deceased. The evidence led before the Tribunal on the aspect of income of Tanaji, consisted of depositions of appellant no.1, the widow of Tanaji and witness Ravindranath Shivram Shinde. Appellant no.1 stated in her evidence that the salary of Tanaji was of Rs.2,000/­ per month and he used to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/­ per month to her. She produced the certificate at Exhibit­18 issued by the Ajinkya Sakhar Kharkhana stating that Tanaji was working with the sugar factory in the Production Department from 2nd September, 1984 till 14th May, 1992 on the salary of Rs. 2,038.90p and that as per the rules of sugar factory, Tanaji could have worked upto the age of 60 years. The witness Ravindranath however produced a detailed salary certificate of Tanaji (Exhibit­18A). This certificate shows that the gross salary payable to Tanaji was Rs.2038.90p per month with deduction of Rs. 1,136.25p, thereby leaving the take home salary of Rs.902.65p. The deductions from the salary as seen from the certificate can be divided into three categories. The first category is contribution towards provident fund, family pension,, * 4 * premium for insurance and contribution to recurring account in Mahila Bank. The next category is deduction towards payment of professional tax, membership of a sports club and contribution to Union. The third category includes payment of Rs.366.20p to Path Pedhi and of Rs.264.05p to `Ajinkya ‘ ’ Bazar . It has further been the evidence of respondent no.2, that Tanaji was ’ employed as a worker in the sugar factory and was getting the emoluments only during the crushing season which lasted for about 6­7 months. For the balance period of the year, he used to get retention allowance of 20% of the salary received by him. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal took into consideration the take home salary of Tanaji of Rs.900/­ for a period of 7 months and 20% of the same (Rs.180/­ per month) for the remaining period of 5 months and calculated the multiplicand of Rs.4,800/­ per year after deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses. Considering the age of Tanaji, at the time of the accident and the longevity of life claimed in the family of the deceased, he took multiplier of 20 years to assess the loss of income or dependency sustained by the appellants and arrived at the quantum of compensation of Rs.96,000/­ for the loss of dependency. He awarded Rs. 10,000/­ to appellant no.1 towards the loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/­ to appellants no.2 to 4 for loss of of love and affection of a father. He awarded Rs.4,000/­ towards funeral expenses, making the total compensation payable to the appellants of Rs.1,20,000/­. * 5 * 7. Mr.Dhamale, the learned counsel for the appellants finds fault with the calculation of the multiplicand by the tribunal. He submits that the learned Presiding Officer ought not to have accepted the deductions of Rs.366.20p to Path Pedhi and Rs.264.05p to Ajinkya Bazar, as according to him these deductions must have been towards some loan or facility obtained by Tanaji and as such would only be of temporary nature. Mr.Hegde the learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits, on the other hand, that there is no evidence before the court that these deductions were of temporary nature, so as to exclude the same in calculating the multiplicand. 8. Perusal of the evidence of appellant no.1 shows that she hardly has any knowledge of the actual salary payable to Tanaji and the deductions to be made therefrom. Besides, her statement that salary of Tanaji was of Rs.2,000/­ per month, is incorrect as can be seen from the certificate at Exhibit­18 produced by her. Exhibit­18 does not give the complete information as regards the salary of Tanaji. When the appellant s own witness Ravindranath Shinde ’ produced a detailed salary certificate at Exhibit­18A, it was necessary for the appellants to get all the deductions from the gross salary explained by putting up appropriate questions to him. The appellants ought to have asked him about the two deductions towards `Path Pedhi and `Ajinkya Bazar , in order to ’ show that the deductions were of temporary nature, so that the same could have been excluded, while calculating the multiplicand. The evidence of * 6 * Ravindranath shows, that not even an attempt has been made by the appellants in this direction. In the circumstances, without these deductions being explained, it is not possible to omit them and calculate the multiplicand at a higher figure. In any case, it is seen that the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 20, which is much higher than that provided under the IIND Schedule to Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act. The multiplier provided for the purpose for the age group to which Tanaji belonged is of 17. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded to the appellants is either inadequate or unreasonable. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. The First Appeal is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]