1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1489 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2770 OF 2009 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellants. Vs. Smt.Lalita Mohan Nalawade & Ors. .. Respondents. Ms.Poonam Mital for the appellants. Mr.P.A.Pol with Siddheshwar Kalel for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & R.Y.GANOO,JJ. DATED : 27/01/2010 PC: 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record so also the evidence of respondent no.1 – Lalita Nalawade, to which our attention was specifically drawn by learned counsel for the appellant. 2. In this appeal, the insurance company has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.11.2008 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangli in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.66 of 2006. By impugned judgment the claim petition has been allowed and the insurance company and respondent no.4 have been directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.10,56,000/- inclusive of “no fault liability” S 2 amount to the claimants with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of bringing the insurance company on record by way of amendment i.e. 27.2.2006. 3. Ms.Mital, learned counsel for the insurance company, has confined her challenge to the quantum of compensation. After inviting our attention to the testimony of respondent no.1 – Lalita Nalawade, she submitted that the income of her deceased husband was about Rs.5,000 to 6,000/- per month. She submitted that the compensation awarded, holding his income Rs.12,000/- per month, was wrong and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of Lalita Nalawade’s evidence, in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus : “.... .... .... In the claim petition it is being contended that the deceased used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month, but, I certainly find some element of exaggeration in saying that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Because a Commerce Graduate, if would have served somewhere else, he certainly must have been earned at least Rs.8 to 9,000/- a month, but he was not serving anywhere precisely because he was getting far more than that what he would have been earned in usual service. I, therefore, take it 3 that the deceased certainly must be earning Rs. 12,000/- per month and so by deducting 1/3rd amount from Rs.12,000/-, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.8,000/- per month. I am, therefore, is of the view that annual dependency comes to Rs.96,000/- and if this amount is multiplied by a multiplier of 11, loss of future dependency comes to Rs.10,56,000/- (8000 X 12 X 11 = Rs.10,56,000/-).” From perusal of the aforesaid finding of fact it is clear that the income of the deceased was held to be about Rs.12,000/- per month. Keeping that in view and considering the age of deceased, the Tribunal has applied multiplier 11 and awarded Rs.10,56,000/- in favour of the claimants. 4. Respondent No.1 in her evidence has stated that her husband was contractor and used to take contracts of roads, bridges etc. His income, according to respondent no.1, was Rs. 15,000/- per month. She has also stated that he used to take contracts on behalf of the three labour societies, as mentioned in her examination in chief. She has denied the suggestion that her husband’s income was not Rs.15,000/- per month. In the cross examination, she has specifically stated that her husband used to spent Rs.8,000 to Rs.9,000/- over the household 4 expenses. She has specifically denied that her income was Rs.2,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month from tailoring, when her husband was alive. She has reiterated in the cross examination that her husband was Chairman of the society which used to take labour contracts. She has denied the suggestion that he was just a member of the society. Her evidence clearly show that the deceased used to take labour contracts on behalf of the three labour societies of which he was Chairman. Having regard to the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal so also the evidence of respondent no.1, in our opinion, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted. The income of the deceased has rightly been held to be Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd amount therefrom, has held that dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.8,000/- per month. No ground warranting interference by this court in the present appeal is made out. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed in limine. No costs. Consequently, the civil application is also disposed of. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the insurance company in this court is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal. (R.Y.Ganoo,J.) (D. B. Bhosale, J.)