1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.527 OF 1996 01. Smt. Shindu Ramdas Wagh age 37 years, occupation household, 02. Mayur Ramdas Wagh, age 14 years, occupation education, 03. Smita Ramdas Wagh, age 13 years, occupation education. 04. Jyoti Ramdas Wagh, age 8 years, occupation Nil. Nos.2 to 4 minors,through their natural and real guardian mother (Appellant No.1). 05. Shri Vitthal Gangadhar Wagh age 57 years, occup. Agril. 06. Shakuntala Vitthal Wagh, age 55 years, occupation household 07. Miss Meena Vitthal Wagh, age 21 years, occupation education. All residents of Chitali, Appellants/ Taluka Shrirampur, Dist. orig.claimants Ahmednagar. 2 versus 01. Damodhar Gopala Gade, age major, occup.Driver, r/of Yeole Akhada, Taluka Rahuri, District: Ahmednagar. 02. The General Manager, Maharashtra Rajya Marg Parivahan Mahamandal, Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg, Respondents/ Bombay- 400 008. ori.respondents ------------------------------------------------------ Shri Ajit Zarekar, Adv.holding for Shri R.T.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None for Respondent No.1. Shri M.K.Goyenka, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------ Coram : P.R. Borkar, J. Date : July 02, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 01. This first appeal is preferred by the original claimants, being aggrieved by the award of Rs.1,00,000/= as compensation towards death of Ramdas Vitthal Wagh, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.139 of 1988 decided on 8.12.1994. 3 02. Brief facts giving rise to this first appeal are; Deceased Ramdas was going from Shrirampur town to his village Chitali on a bicycle on 27.12.1987 at about 7.00 p.m. When Ramdas was at a distance of about 3 kilometers from village Gondhavani, the accident took place as S.T. bus bearing No.MHB 9744 driven by Respondent No.1 and owned by Respondent No.2 gave dash to him due to which he fell down and sustained injuries which resulted into his death. The appellants-claimants therefore filed above claim petition for compensation. Appellant No.1 is widow, appellant No.2 is son, appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are the daughters, appellant Nos. 5 and 6 are the parents and appellant No.7 was minor sister of the deceased. 03. In this appeal, only quantum is challenged. As per the case made out by the appellants-claimants, deceased Ramdas was working in Spinning Mill and earning Rs.900/= per month. He had also landed property from which he was earning Rs.1300/= per month./ The salary certificate produced at Exh.28 shows that the salary of the deceased was Rs.932/= per month. The tribunal held that the deceased Ramdas had 4 1/3rd share in the land in all admeasuring 3 acres 3 guanthas and as such, the deceased was having share to the extent of 1 acre 1 guntha land and, therefore, it was not possible for him to get Rs.1300/= as income per month from the agricultural land. It was observed that the land was jirayat land. Ultimately, monthly dependency was held to be of Rs.500/= by applying multiplier of 15. 04. Shri Zarekar, learned Advocate for the appellants, submitted that income of the deceased should have been considered as Rs.1000/= per month, monthly dependency should have been held to be Rs. 800/= and multiplier of 15 should have been applied. He also submitted that nothing was awarded towards love and affection and funeral. 05. Advocate Shri Goyenka for Respondent No.2 submitted that the deceased was a substitute (Badly) employee and was not a permanent or regular employee and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that he would have got fixed salary every month, but only as and when he is employed.Learned counsel drew my attention to the salary certificate (Exh.28) of the deceased which shows that the deceased was working since 1978 5 as "Badli Speed frame tenter" since 1978 with Shrirampur Kapus Utpadak Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Shrirampur. 06. Advocate Shri Zarekar for the appellants relied upon the case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and submitted that dependency should have been considered as 4/5th. But, at the same time we have also to consider the fact that the deceased was Badli (substitute) worker and not a permanent employee who would necessary get daily work. It is also required to be taken into consideration that appellant No.7 Meena Wagh, who was sister of the deceased, could not have been his legal representative when the deceased had widow, parents and the children. Secondly, it is not known whether the deceased had any brother on whom appellant Nos.5 and 6 could have been dependent. The age of the son (applicant No.2) was 17 years when the application was filed before the tribunal. 07. So, considering above facts, in my opinion, monthly dependency from the income from services of deceased with Spinning Mill can be held to be of Rs. 500/= which comes to Rs.6,000/= per annum. Considering 6 the age and ratio in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), I hold 16 as proper multiplier and award Rs.96,000/=. To this, I add Rs.20,000/= towards loss of consortium, love and affection and Rs.5,000/= towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total comes to Rs.1,21,000/=. 08. Advocate Shri Goyenka submits that on enhanced amount, interest should be awarded at the rate prevailing today and the same should be from the date of judgment of the tribunal. I do not agree with this submission. If the appellants-claimants are entitled to receive amount of Rs.1,21,000/= in the year 1987 and if that amount is not paid till date, there is no reason why enhanced amount should not carry interest at the rate prevailing in 1987 from the date of application. At this stage, it is stated that the entire amount of award of the tribunal along with interest is already paid and what is due is only enhanced amount. 09. In above view of the matter, it is directed that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay Rs.1,21,000/= together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of application (15.4.1988) till actual payment. 7 10. Appeal is accordingly, allowed. Advocate Shri Goyenka for Respondents states that Respondents shall deposit the balance amount in this court within twelve weeks from today. Statement accepted. pnd/fa527.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) 8