1 WP: 293/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.451 OF 1995 Maharashtra State Road Transport .... Petitioners Corporation Vs. Smt. Bharatibai Dattatray Sanga .... Respondents & Ors. Mr. C.M. Lokesh i/by Mr. G.S. Hegde, for petitioners. Mr. R.R. Adep, Advocate for respondents. Coram : A.S. OKA J. Date : 27th September 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award made by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 under Section 110­A Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The claim was filed on account of death of one Dattatray in a motor accident. 2 WP: 293/2010 3. The deceased was travelling by a bus owned by the appellant which was proceeding from Solapur to Pune. According to the case of 1st to 5th respondents, the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed. At that time, the truck owned by the 6th respondent, which was insured with the 7th respondent came from the opposite direction. The allegation is that the driver of the bus could not control the speed of the bus and gave a dash to the truck. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. 4. The appellant contested the claim by filing a written statement. It was contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. The 7th respondent (insurer of the truck) filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of the appellant s bus. The Tribunal held that ’ accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the bus. The learned Member of the Tribunal passed an Award against the appellant in a sum of Rs.2,73,720/­ (inclusive of no fault liability) with interest. 3 WP: 293/2010 5. The challenge in the appeal is two fold. The first contention is that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the truck and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of bus. The second contention is that the compensation granted is excessive and exorbitant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that higher multiplier of 20 has been illegally applied. Learned counsel for the original claimants supported the impugned judgment and award. 6. As far as the first challenge is concerned, the same cannot be considered in as much as by order dated 26th June 1995 passed by this Court, in Civil Application No.3129 of 1995, the names of the 6th and 7th respondents were deleted. In the absence of said respondents, the contention of the appellant that the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck owned by the 6th respondent and insured with the 7th respondent cannot be considered. 7. The deceased was employed as a Clerk in the Sales Tax Department. Certificate at Exhibit 60 issued by Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, Solapur disclosed that he was drawing salary 4 WP: 293/2010 of Rs.1617/­ per month. The service record showed that the age of the deceased was 38 years, at the time of accident. 8. The Tribunal by taking the income of Rs.1617/­ made a deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal expenditure of the deceased and applied multiplier of 20 for granting the total compensation of a sum Rs.2,58,720/­. The Tribunal added usual amount of Rs.15,000/­. 9. Going by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009 (6) SCC 121], the multiplier of 20 is on the higher side. In fact multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. However, in terms of said judgment, as the deceased was in the regular employment of Sales Tax Department, 50% of the income ought to have been added on account of future prospects of increase in the earnings. The said amount has not been added by the Tribunal. As number of dependents were between 4 to 6, only 1/4th amount could have been deducted on account of personal expenditure of the deceased. Therefore, by invoking Rule 33 or Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the correct 5 WP: 293/2010 calculation of the compensation is made in terms of directions of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma (supra), the amount of compensation payable will be higher than what is already granted. Therefore, even accepting the contention that the multiplier of 20 applied by the Tribunal is higher side, it is not possible to find fault with the award made by the Tribunal. 10. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.S. OKA, J)