kbp 1 fa1352-96.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1352 OF 1996 Chandarani Divakar Chikorde ..Appellant Vs. The General Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.S.V.Sadavare, for appellants. Mr.G.S.Hegde a/w.Mr.C.M.Lokesh, for respondent no.1. Mr.A.B.Gatne, for respondent no.5. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 25th November, 2009. JUDGMENT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The challenge in this first appeal is to the judgment and award passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 14 th July, 1994 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.3 of 1986. The compensation was claimed by appellant for herself and as guardian of her minor son on account of death of her husband Divakar in a motor accident. The said Divakar along with another son of appellant were traveling by a State Transport bus on 8 th June, 1985 from Malvan to Kolhapur. A goods truck coming from Kolhapur gave a dash to the Bus. The said Divakar and son of the appellant died on the spot. There were kbp 2 fa1352-96.sxw two claim petitions filed by the appellant. One was for claiming compensation on account of demise of her son and other was for claiming compensation on account of demise of her husband. The State Transport Corporation, owner and driver of truck, and insurer of the truck were made parties to the claim petition. Both the claim petitions were partly allowed by holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus as well as truck. The liability was apportioned as 50­50. As far as the present claim is concerned, the appellant claimed compensation of Rs.4,25,000/­. The compensation of Rs. 93,280/­ was granted by the Tribunal along with with interest of 12% per annum. The prayer in this appeal is for enhancement in compensation by a further amount of Rs.Two lacs. It must be stated here that none of the respondents have challenged the award by preferring an appeal or cross­objection. 3] Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Tribunal. He submitted that the future prospects of increase in the income of the deceased husband have not been considered by the Tribunal. He submitted that the dependency taken by the Tribunal is on lower side. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed gross error by taking monthly dependency only of Rs.446/­. He submitted that the multiplier applied is on the lower side. 4] Learned counsel for the first respondent supported the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the appellant was getting family pension kbp 3 fa1352-96.sxw and taking into consideration the family pension, the dependency has been correctly taken at Rs.446 per month. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that there is no ground taken in the memorandum of appeal regarding non­consideration of prospects of future increase in the salary. He pointed out that the son of the appellant is not made appellant. He submitted that no interference is called for. 5] I have carefully considered the submissions. The only question to be decided is as regards the quantum of compensation. The school leaving certificate produced by the appellant shows that the date of birth of the deceased was 5 th December, 1947. Therefore, his age is rightly taken as 38 years at the time of accident. The deceased was an employee of the Public Works Department as a Junior Engineer. On the basis of the certificate at exhibit 60 produced on record, the learned Member of the Tribunal observed that the net salary of the deceased was Rs.1,572.30. The appellant admitted that as a consequence of the death of her husband, she is getting a sum of Rs.700/­ per month as family pension. 6] As far as the calculation of the multiplicand and the application of the multiplier is concerned, the law on that the point has been summarised in the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [2009 ACJ 1298]. The Apex Court in said decision has laid down guidelines for calculation of the multiplicand and kbp 4 fa1352-96.sxw application of proper multiplier. In the present case, the evidence shows that the deceased had a permanent job in the State Government and and his age was less than 40 years. Therefore, for calculating multiplicand, an amount equivalent 50% of the salary will have to be added to the net salary. The net salary as stated earlier is Rs.1572.30 and 50% of the said amount will have to be added to the net income. Thus the total income will have to be taken at Rs. 2358.45 (Rs.1572.30 + Rs.786.15). A deduction of Rs.700/­ from that amount will have to be made on account of the family pension. Thus, the total income for the purpose of calculating multiplicand will have to be taken at Rs.1658.45. As far as the deduction on account of personal expenses is concerned, in the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the formula has been laid down in paragraph 30. In a case where number of dependents are 2 to 3, the deduction of 1/3 rd will have to be made. After making 1/3 rd deduction, the dependency comes to Rs. 1106/­ per month (Rs.1645.45–Rs.552.50=1105.63=Rs.1106). . As far as multiplier is concerned, the Apex Court in paragraph 42 has held that for the age group of 36 to 40, years the appropriate multiplier is 15. Applying multiplier of 15, the compensation amount comes to Rs.1,99,080/­. In view of what is stated in paragraph 19 of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, in the present case, the usual amount of Rs.15,000/­ will have to be added. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.2,14,080/­ will have to be awarded. A sum of Rs.93,280/­ has been already awarded inclusive of no fault liability. Thus, the difference kbp 5 fa1352-96.sxw comes to Rs.1,20,800/­. 7] The question which arises is that what should be interest payable on the additional amount. Considering the fact that from the date of accident there has been fluctuation in the interest rates and now the interest rates have considerably gone down, on the additional amount, the interest will have to be paid at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. To the aforesaid extent, the appeal will have to be partly allowed. It is clarified that the appellant was representing her minor son before the Tribunal, and therefore, the enhancement granted under this judgment will be for the benefit of both the appellant and her minor son. 8] Hence, I pass the following order:­ (a) Apart from the compensation payable under the impugned judgment and award, the claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.3 of 1986 shall be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 1,20,800/­ together with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the deposit of the amount. (b) The respondents are granted time of four months from today to deposit the additional compensation amount. (c) The respondents shall pay the proportionate costs of the appeal to the appellant. kbp 6 fa1352-96.sxw (d) After the amount is deposited, the Tribunal will pass an appropriate order of disbursement/investment of the amount in favour of the appellant and her son, after hearing the parties. (e) The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms ( A.S.OKA, J. )