1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.465 OF 2010. Smt.Sunita Wd/o Laxman Beldar and others ... Appellants. Versus Pravin S/o Ashok Surpatne and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.M.Gholap, advocate for the appellants. Mr.A.V.Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Mr.A.A.Khande, advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 06.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The appellants are the original claimants. They had filed the claim petition 2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon, for compensation on account of death of one Laxman, who was the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 to 4. The Tribunal had awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,48,500/- (Rupees three lacs forty eight thousand five hundred) to the claimants considering the income of the deceased as Rs. 100/- per day. 2. Mr.Gholap, learned counsel for the appellants contended that deceased Laxman was doing business of fishery and was getting income of Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day. To substantiate the claim made by the claimants, the claimants had examined P.W.2 Balu Pandit who was also doing the same business of fishery and also had examined P.W.3 Ashok Sopan Rane, who was also working as a Recovery Clerk with the contractor. Both the witnesses have categorically stated the factum of the income of the deceased of Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day. Deduction of 1/3rd amount made by the Tribunal is also excessive when there are six claimants. The deduction towards 3 personal expenses should not have been more than 1/4th. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Courts below has properly considered the notional income. There is no proof of the income which was earned by the deceased. Mr.Deshpande, also further contended that deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses is correct. 4. With the assistance of the learned advocates for the respective parties, I have gone through the record. Perusal of evidence of P.W.2 who is also doing the same business shows that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day from the said business. The Respondents have not brought anything adverse in the cross- examination. There is only one line cross- examination which also supports the applicants. In the cross-examination, it has been brought on record that the said witness belongs to the same village as that of the deceased. Apart from that there is no cross-examination to the said 4 witness. 5. In absence of any contrary evidence, there is no reason as to why evidence of witnesses who are examined by the claimants should not be believed. They have categorically stated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 200/- to Rs.300/- per day. Nothing contrary is brought on record. In absence of any contrary evidence, I am inclined to accept the income of deceased as Rs.200/- per day. So also taking into account the judgment of the Apex Court in case of "Smt.Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another" 2009 (2) T.A.C.677 (S.C.), the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been made to the extent of 1/4th amount. In such circumstances, I modify the order of the Tribunal and pass the following order : The appeal is allowed. The appellants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs. 5,15,500/- (Rupees five lacs fifteen thousand five hundred) alongwith interest at the rate of 5 Rs.7.5% p.a. on the said amount from the date of application till realisation. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/fa465.10