1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 887 OF 1996 1. Anandrao Yashwant Nalawade ) Age 45, Occupation Tansport, ) R/o. Gayabi Galli, Kasabe Digraj, ) Tal. Miraj, District – Sangli. ) 2. The New India Assurance Company ) Ltd., Sangali. ) 3. Baldevsingh Ajitsingh, ) Chawl No.73/1907, Tagore Nagar, ) Vikhroli, Bombay 400 083. ) 4. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ) Vikhroli, Bombay. ).. Appellants (Org. Opponent Nos.1 to 4.) Vs 1. Kamalabai Vishnu Kirdat, Age 40, ) 2. Vishnu Gyanaba Kirdat, ) Age 45, Occupation of No.1 Household, ) No.2, Agriculturist, Both R/o. Anewadi, ) Post Ozarde, Taluka Wai. ) 3. Shivaji Mahadeo Pawar, Age 52, ) Occupation Driver, R/o. Anewadi, ) Post Ozarde, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara. ).. Respondents (Org. Applicant Nos.1 & 2, Org. Opponents No.5 ) ­­ Shri D.R. Mahadik h/f Shri S.R. Singh for the Appellants. Shri L.S. Gaikwad for the Respondents. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : . The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard yesterday i.e. On 10th February, 2010. The Appellants have taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 18th June, 1993 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara, in a Claim Petition filed by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. The 1st and the 2nd Respondents are the parents of the deceased Rajendra Kirdat who died in a motor accident on 4th August, 1988. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs.1,35,000/­ together with interest @ 12% per annum. The present Appeal is by the Original 1st to 4th Opponents. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of quantum. He submitted that the father of the deceased stepped into the witness box and contended that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.750/­ per month. He pointed out that the version of the 5th Opponent in the Claim Petition who was driver of the truck on which the deceased was working as a cleaner is that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.125/­ to Rs.150/­ per month. He submitted that notwithstanding all this, the dependency has been taken as Rs.750/­ and multiplier of 15 has been applied. He submitted that there is no basis for taking dependency at Rs.750/­ per month and considering the respective ages of the deceased, a multiplier of 15 is on the higher side. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st and the 3 2nd Respondents supported the impugned award. He submitted that no interference is called for. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The case of the 1st and the 2nd Respondents is that the deceased was working as a Cleaner in the employment of the 3rd Appellant. In paragraph 10 of the judgment, the learned Member of the Tribunal has observed thus:­ “10. .....Under the circumstances, I do not see any reason to disbelieve the version of Vishnu Kirdat, who is the father of the deceased that the deceased was getting Rs.600/­ p.m. by way of salary.” 4. Thus, the learned Member of the Tribunal accepted that even the case of the father of the deceased was that he was drawing the salary of Rs.600/­ per month. But dependency has been taken as Rs.750/­ per month. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st and the 2nd Respondents tried to submit that future prospects of earnings of the deceased have been considered. However, there is no evidence that the deceased was in the regular employment and, therefore, there were future prospects of enhancement in the salary. Therefore, even if the case of the 2nd Respondent/father was taken to be correct, the monthly earnings of the deceased were Rs.600/­ per month. The deceased was a bachelor and the 1st and the 2nd Respondents/Claimants are the parents of the deceased. In view of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., [(2009)6 SCC 121 ], half of the 4 amount will have to be deducted on account of personal expenditure of the deceased as he was a bachelor at the time of his death. Therefore, the dependency can be taken as Rs.300/­ per month i.e. Rs.3,600/­ per year. As far as multiplier is concerned, the age of the Claimants is more than the age of the deceased, therefore, the multiplier will have to be fixed on the basis of the age of the parents. The age of the father of the deceased at the time of accident was 45 years. In view of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier 13 could have been applied as the 2nd Respondent had completed 45 years of age. Thus, the compensation amount will be Rs.46,800/­ to which the amount of Rs.5,000/­ will have to be added on account of funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation will be Rs.51,800/­ which can be rounded off to Rs.52,000/­. 5. Hence, the Appeal is disposed of by passing following order. (a) The impugned judgment and award is modified. The compensation payable will be Rs.52,000/­ instead of Rs.1,35,000/­. Rest of the award is confirmed. (b) The Appeal is partly allowed in above terms. (c) The amount deposited by the Appellant in this Court with interest accrued thereon shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal. The concerned Tribunal shall 5 pass an appropriate order regarding disbursement and/or withdrawal of the amount. (A.S.OKA, J) ash