1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL No. 1158 OF 2010 1] Shoba Raju @ Rajendra Khupte, age 36 years, 2] Priyanka Raju @ Rajendra Khupte, Age 17 years, Occu. Education, 3] Poonam Raju @ Rajendra Khupte, Age 14 years, Occu. Education, 4] Amruta Raju @ Rajendra Khupte, age 15 years, Occu. Education, 5] Bhavna Raju @ Rajendra Khupte, age 10 years, Occu. Education, 6] Disha Raju @ Rajendra Khupte, Age 7 years, Occu. Education, 7] Kanchan Raju @ Rajendra Khupte, Age 6 years, Occu. Education, Appellant Nos. 2 to 7 minor through Guardian-mother appellant No. 1. 8] Jayaram Kisan Khpute, age 84 years, Occu. Nil, 9] Thakubai Jayram Khpute, Age 79 years, Occu. Nil, All resident of Javale, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar ..APPELLANTS (Ori. Claimant Nos. 1 to 9) VERSUS 2 1] Bhajrang Ramchandra Varal, Age 56 years, Occu. Transport Business, R/o Nighoj, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2] The United Insurance Co. Ltd., Kisan Kranti Building, Market Yard, Station road, Ahmednagar .. RESPONDENTS (Ori. Opponent Nos. 1 & 2) ... Shri A.S. Zarkar, Advocate for appellants. Shri S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Shri S.V. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No. 2 CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :- 8th SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. The present appellants are the original claimants, have filed petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation of Rs. Seven lakh, on account of the death of deceased Raju @ Rajendra Khupte, who was the husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant Nos. 2 to 7 and son of appellant No. 8 & 9. The Tribunal has partly allowed the petition, directing the opponent Nos. 3 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs. 4,98,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 3. The claimants being aggrieved by non- grant of total compensation amount as prayed, has approached this Court. 4. Shri Zarekar, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted as under a] The age of the deceased admittedly was 35 years. The multiplier should have been applied as 16. The Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 13. b] The deduction towards personal expenses has been made as 1/4th of the income. Taking into account the number of claimants, the deduction ought to have been 1/5th. c] Only Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection. According to the Judgment of the Madras High Court, in a case of “Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Ltd.) represented through its 4 Managing Director, Karaikudi Region (Division III), Karaikudi Vs. Pothumoponnu & others, reported in 2010(1) T.A.C. 847 (Mad.)” amount ought to have been awarded to each of the claimant towards love and affection. 5. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, submitted that there is no straight jacket formula for applying the multiplier, deductions for personal expenses and the amount to be awarded towards love and affection. He further submitted that no evidence has been led to show the actual expenses incurred by the deceased. According to him, the schedule is merely a guideline, the multiplier i.e. to be applied depending upon facts and circumstances of each case, and the Tribunal considering all these aspects has arrived at correct conclusion. 6. With the assistance of the learned Counsels for the parties, I have gone through the record. 5 7. Undisputedly, the age of the deceased was 35 years. As per the schedule, provided under the Act, the multiplier to be applied is 17. The said schedule would a guideline. Taking into account the dictum of the Apex Court, in a case of “Sarla Verma (Smt.) & others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported (2009) 6 S.C.C., 121” in similar circumstances, the Apex Court had applied the multiplier of 16. I feel that there is no impediment to apply the multiplier of 16. the Tribunal has applied the multiplier on a lower side and for that purpose has not given any reasons. 8. Regarding the contention of Shri Zarekar, the learned Counsel for the appellants, that deductions to personal expenses ought to have been made 1/5th, taking into account number of claimants. I feel there is no evidence on record, to show the actual expenses which the deceased was incurring upon himself and in that view, the deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses allowed is proper. Regarding compensation towards loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has 6 awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- in lum-sum. In fact, it should have been awarded in favour of each of the claimants. In the light of the same, I hereby awarded the amount of Rs. 5,000/- as a compensation towards loss of love and affection in favour of appellant Nos. 1,8 & 9 and Rs. 10,000/- each in favour of appellants No. 2 to 7. In the result, I pass the following order. ORDER A] Appeal is allowed. B] The respondents No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 6,61,000/- (Rs. Six lakh sixty one thousand) along with interest @ of Rs. 7% per annum from the date of application till realization. On realization of the amount Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be paid to the appellant No. 1 and Rs. 35,000/- each to the appellants No. 8 & 9, and in the remaining amount the appellants Nos.2 to 7 shall have equal share in the amount of compensation. The share of each of the appellants Nos. 2 to 7 shall be kept 7 in fixed deposit in the Nationalized Bank. The amount already withdrawn shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation payable, as per the order of this Court. C] Rule made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM*1158.10FA