IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.909 OF 2004. APPEAL NO.909 OF 2004. APPEAL NO.909 OF 2004. Smt Sheetal Sharad Pawar & Ors. ...Appellants. Versus. Shri Bandappa Basappa Borge & Anr. ...Respondents. Shri C.M.Lokesh for the Appellants. Shri S.G.Deshpande for the Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 06th February, 2008. : 06th February, 2008. : 06th February, 2008. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Heard advocates appearing for the appellants and the second respondent. On the last date, the parties were put to notice that the appeal will be heard finally at the stage of admission. The appellants are the claimants in a Claim Petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The first appellant is the widow of the deceased who is the victim of the accident. The second and third appellants are the minor children of the deceased. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The second respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. 2. After a contest, the learned Member of the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent. It was found that the vehicle in question at the relevant time was validly insured with the second respondent. The learned Member : 2 : 2 : 2 : of the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.01,77,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. The submission of the advocate for the appellants is that considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 9 adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submitted that the gross salary payable to the deceased was Rs.5,000/- and therefore, the multiplicand ought to have been calculated on the basis of the gross salary. He submitted that future prospects earnings of the deceased have not been considered. He submitted that there was every possibility that the salary of the deceased would have been enhanced in future considering the fact that he was a permanent employee of the City and the Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. 4. The submission of the learned advocate for the second respondent is that multiplier adopted is infact on the higher side. He submitted that as the dependency has been capitalised by adopting higher multiplier, the dependency taken at Rs.1,500/- per month is fully justified. He pointed out that interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded by the Tribunal. He pointed out the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerla State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susama Thomas (AIR 1994 : 3 : 3 : 3 : Supreme Court Page 1631) and submitted that the compensation awarded is a just compensation. 5. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions. The deceased was an employee of the City and the Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited which is a government undertaking. The salary slip on record shows that total pay of the deceased was Rs.4,987/- and after making all deductions towards income tax, professional tax, provident fund loan, housing loan etc., the net salary in January 1991 was Rs.3,199.70/-. It is true that if there was evidence on record to show prospects of enhancement in income of the deceased, while arriving at the correct figure of multiplicand, the said future prospects of enhancement in earnings were required to be considered. In the present case the appellants have not examined any competent officer of the employer of the deceased to prove possibility of enhancement in pay in future. 6. Now turning back to the facts of the case, after deducting nearly one third amount of Rs.3,199/- on account of personal expenditure, the dependency ought to have been broadly taken at Rs.2,000/- per month. As far as age of the deceased is concerned, there is some controversy. The evidence of the first appellant discloses that age of her husband was 43 years. The age : 4 : 4 : 4 : of the deceased mentioned in F.I.R is 40 years. Considering this material on record, multiplier of 9 adopted by the Tribunal is reasonable as in case of deceased having age of 37 years the Apex Court has consistently taken multiplier of 12. Thus, the compensation payable to the appellants ought to have ben Rs.02,16,000/- (Rs.2000 X 12 X 9). In addition to that, usual amount of Rs.15,000/- has been already awarded by the Tribunal on account of loss of consortium etc. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants will be Rs.2,31,000/-. The net result is that the appellants are entitled to enhancement by Rs.54,000/-. 8. The accident is of 13th February, 1991. The claim petition was decided on 12th October, 1995. Though the appeal was preferred in the year 1996, the same is coming up before this Court in the year 2008. In the meanwhile, the Apex Court has taken a note that interests rates have considerably gone down. it is true that when the claim petition was decided there was every justification for the Tribunal to fix the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. However, considering the subsequent reduction in the rates of interest, a interest on enhanced amount will have to be granted at the rate of 9% per annum. The appellants will be entitled to proportionate costs on the enhanced amount. : 5 : 5 : 5 : 9. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) In addition to the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award, the appellants will be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.54,000/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation or payment. In addition to the costs awarded under the impugned judgment and award, the appellants will be entitled to proportionate costs of the claim petition on enhancement as well as the proportionate costs of this appeal. (ii) Time of three months is granted to the second respondent to comply with the modified award. (iii) Appeal is partly allowed in above terms. (iv) The parties and concerned Tribunal to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. Judge. Judge. Judge.