IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.997 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.497 OF 1997 Smt. Abeda Mahaboob Mulla .... Applicant thru’ LRs Kumar Ijaj Mehaboob Mulla & Ors. Vs. Shri Govindrao Laxman Kirmate .... Respondents & Ors. Mr. D.S. Sawant, Advocate for applicant. None for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 24th March, 2011 P.C. This civil application is filed for recording the death of appellant no.1 and showing appellants no.2 and 3 in their additional capacity as the heirs of appellant no.1. The second relief sought in the application is to show appellants no.2 and 3 as major, they having attained majority during the pendency of the appeal. Since, both the reliefs sought in the application are purely procedural and do not affect the merits of the matter anywhere, the civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). Amendments to be carried out within two weeks. ( Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.998 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.497 OF 1997 Smt. Abeda Mahaboob Mulla .... Applicant thru’ LRs Kumar Ijaj Mehaboob Mulla & Ors. Vs. Shri Govindrao Laxman Kirmate .... Respondents & Ors. Mr. D.S. Sawant, Advocate for applicant. None for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 24th March, 2011 P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the civil application. The civil application is allowed to be withdrawn, as prayed. ( Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.497 OF 1997 Smt. Abeda Mahaboob Mulla .... Appellant. thru’ LRs Kumar Ijaj Mehaboob Mulla & Ors. Vs. Shri Govindrao Laxman Kirmate .... Respondents & Ors. Mr. D.S. Sawant, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 24th March, 2011 P.C. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants to seek enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the impugned judgment and order dated 9th February 1996. Original appellant no.1 is the widow of one Mehboob Mulla, who died in a motor vehicle accident. Appellants no.2 and 3 are his children, who at the time of filing of the appeal were minors. They have since attained majority and have continued the appeal in their individual capacities. The other two heirs of deceased Mehboob Mulla are his parents, who were original respondents no.4 and 5. Respondent no.4 has died pending the appeal. (2) 2. The impugned judgment and order is not challenged either by the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident or the insurer. Mr. Sawant, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the only error in the impugned judgment and order is the error in the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal calculated the compensation for loss of dependency by using multiplier of 12 on the basis of the age of the deceased as 38 years. Mr. Sawant points out that the age of the deceased as per the record i.e. as per the deposition of PW-1, the widow and as per the school leaving certificate (Exhibit 39) was 34 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the correct multiplier that ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal was either of 17 as per second schedule appended to Section 163-A Motor Vehicles Act or 16 as per the latest decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009(5) Mh. L.J., 775. 3. Perusal of the record justifies the objection raised by the appellants to the impugned judgment and order. PW-1 in her evidence stated that at the time of the accident, age of her husband was about 34 years. She produced school leaving certificate (Exhibit 39), which gives the date of birth of the deceased as 8th February 1955. There was no challenge before the Tribunal either to the deposition of original appellant no.1 or to the document of school leaving certificate. The (3) observation of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order that “ the age of the deceased from the material on record at the time of death appears to be 38 years”, is not correct. There is nothing on record to indicate that his age was of 38 years. Hence the multiplier of 12 adopted by the Tribunal on that basis cannot be justified. The Apex Court in its decision in Sarla Verma’s case has observed that for the age of the deceased within the bracket of 31 years to 35 years, the appropriate multiplier to be used should be 16 which needs to be applied to the facts of the present case. The appellants do not dispute the multiplicand of Rs.7,200/- adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the loss of dependency with the multiplier of 16 years would be Rs. 1,15,200/- from that the amount @20% is to be deducted towards uncertainties of life, which comes to about 23,040/-. The Tribunal has in addition awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium/ love and affection and Rs.880/- towards expenses of funeral. Taking those two additions into account, the total amount of compensation payable to the appellants would be Rs.1,03,040/-. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is modified. The respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,03,040/- to the claimants including the amount of Rs.15,000/- already paid towards no fault liability together with the interest as awarded by the Tribunal. ( Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)