1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.193 OF 2007 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..Appellant V/s. Vijay Raosaheb Sangamnerkar & ors..Respondents Mr.S.M.Vidyarthi, for the appellant Mr.V.B.Nighot, advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY,2008 JUDGMENT . Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. The appeal is filed by insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident taking an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 30th May, 2006 passed by the learned member of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune. The first to third respondents are the original claimants. The first and second respondents are parents of the deceased and the third respondent is the widow. 2 2. The deceased was a legal practioner by profession, practising at Junnar, District Pune. The accident occurred on 15th March, 1998 while he was travelling by a Maruti car. The dash was given by a truck insured with the appellant to the said Maruti car. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. 3. The learned member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.60,000/-. The learned member of the Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 and granted compensation of Rs.7,30,000/-. 4. The submission of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant is that the deceased had put in only few years in legal profession and therefore, it is not possible to accept that his monthly income was Rs.5000/-. His submission is that no reliable evidence was adduced by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for establishing that the monthly earnings of the 3 deceased were Rs.5000/-. He submitted that considering the fact that the deceased was 28 years old, the multiplier of 18 applied is on the higher side. He submitted that the compensation awarded is exhorbitant. 5. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 supported impugned Judgment and Award by pointing out that in fact the said respondents had led evidence by examining Mr.Vilas Purwant, advocate with whom the deceased was working as a Junior advocate. He pointed out that the evidence on record shows that his income taken by the Tribunal is not on the higher side. He submitted that multiplier applied is reasonable considering the fact that the deceased was a legal practioner. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. There is no dispute that the age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of the accident. The settled position of law is that 4 in India highest multiplier of 18 can be applied to the age group of 18 to 24 years. In many cases the Apex Court has applied the multiplier of 13 in cases where the deceased was in the age group of 32 to 33 years. Considering the fact that the age of the deceased was 28 years, the highest multiplier of 18 could not have been applied by the learned member of the Tribunal. In my view, multiplier of 16 is reasonable in the present case. 7. Now turning to the evidence relating to the income of the deceased, one Shri Vilas Purwant, an advocate was examined who deposed that the deceased was working in his chamber as a Junior advocate from 1st April, 1995 to 14th March, 1998. He deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- to 6000/- per month. He deposed that he used to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the deceased. 8. The learned member of the Tribunal 5 observed that the deceased was practising advocate at Junnar and Narayangaon in Pune District. The learned member observed that as the deceased was working as a Junior advocate it is not possible to accept that his earnings were Rs.14,000/- to 15,000/- as contended by the original claimants. Therefore, the learned member has taken the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month. There is evidence on record to show that the deceased had practised atleast for a period of three years in the Courts at Junnar and Narayangaon. Therefore, it is obvious that the learned member of the Tribunal has taken a reasonable view of the matter and has rightly accepted that the income of the deceased was Rs.5000/- p.m.. After deducting 1/3rd of the income on account of personal expenditure, the multiplicand will be Rs.40,000/-. 9. Thus, the compensation payable will be Rs.6,40,000/-(Rs.40,000/- x 16). The learned member of the Tribunal has awarded a total 6 amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of consortium etc. Considering the fact that the accident was of the year 1998, the said amount ought to have been Rs.15,000/-. 10. The interest awarded at the rate of 8% p.a. is reasonable considering the fact that the claim was of the year 1998. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 on instructions states that ½ of the amount of compensation may be paid to the third claimant, the widow of the deceased and the remaining ½ shall be equally distributed between the original claimant Nos.1 and 2. 11. Hence, I pass the following order. (i) The impugned Judgment and Award is modified. (ii) The modified Award reads thus :- “(a) Opponent Nos.1 and 2 do pay jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.6,55,000/- together with 7 simple interest at the rate of 8 per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till the date of the realisation of the amount. (b) The compensation amount shall be inclusive of the amount awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (c) 50% of the compensation amount shall be paid to the original claimant No.3 (widow). Out of the amount payable to the original claimant No.3, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in her name with any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. The third claimant will be entitled to withdraw quarterly interest on the Fixed Deposit. The balance amount shall be paid to her by an account payee cheque. (d) The remaining 50% of the compensation amount shall be equally distributed between claimant Nos.1 and 2 by account payee cheques. 8 (e) The claimants will be entitled for proportionate costs of the Claim Petition from the opponent Nos.1 and 2. (f) The claimants shall pay deficit Court fee stamp on the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- before the withdrawal of the compensation amount.” (iii) The appellants will be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this Court. The Tribunal will refund the necessary amount to the appellants after hearing the original claimants. (iv) The appeal is partly allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J.)