1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.814 OF 1992 1 Rakhamabai Kondiba Lashakare 2 Suresh K.Lashakare 3 Sunita K.Lashkare 4 Shashikant K.Lashakare 5 Dhanraja K.Lashakare 6 Santosh K.Lashkare(deleted) 7 Sampat K. Lashakare ...Appellants vs. 1 Damodar Shripad Vahul 2 Manohar Baurao Jadhav 3 Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Respondents Mr.S.M.Oak for the appellants Mr.N.V.Gangal for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2009 JUDGMENT : 1 I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent. The challenge in this appeal preferred by the original claimants is to the Judgment and Award dated 10 th October 1991 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The first appellant is the mother of the deceased. The name of the deceased is Chandrakant. The 2 nd to 7 th appellants are the brothers and sisters of the deceased. The deceased died in a motor accident on 28 th December 1987 involving a truck which was owned by the 2 nd respondent and which was at the relevant time insured with the 3 rd respondent-company. The claim made 2 with the tribunal was in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. The tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. However, the tribunal granted compensation of only Rs. 25,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. 2 The learned counsel for the appellants has invited my attention to the finding recorded by the tribunal as regards the quantum of compensation. He pointed out that the deceased was employed and after the demise of his father, the deceased was the earning livelihood for supporting the family. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the multiplier of 10 adopted by the tribunal is not proper and instead multiplier of 18 ought to have been taken. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ([2009] SCC 129 ). He submitted that the appellants were entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 3 The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent supported the impugned Judgment and Award and submitted that no interference is called for. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. In the present case, the age of the first appellant who is stated to be a dependent on the deceased is more than the 3 age of the deceased. Therefore, the multiplier will have to be determined on the basis of the age of the 1 st appellant. Her age at the time of the death of the deceased is stated to be 35 years. Therefore, in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied. The tribunal has applied multiplier of only 10. 5 Apart from applying lower multiplier, the tribunal has committed an error by taking the monthly earnings of the deceased only at Rs.225/- per month. It is noted that the deceased was doing the job of loading and unloading goods from trucks. Considering the fact that the age of the deceased was only 18 years, for the purpose of calculating multiplicand higher income ought to have been considered. Even if income of the deceased is taken at Rs.15/- per day for 26 days of a month, the monthly income will be Rs.390/- per month. After deducting 1/3 rd amount, the monthly dependancy will be Rs.260/-. Hence, yearly dependancy will be Rs.3120/-. Applying multiplier of 16, the compensation will be Rs. 49,920/-. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- prayed for by the appellants was just and reasonable and the same ought to have been awarded. 6 The claim petition filed by the claimants is of the 4 year 1980. Interest rates have considerably gone down in the recent past. The claim petition remained pending as earlier there was an order of remand. Therefore, interest at the rate of 7.5% will have to be awarded on the enhanced amount of Rs.25,000/-. 7 Hence, I pass the following order : i) In addition to the amount awarded by the impugned Judgment and Award, 2 nd and 3 rd respondents are directed to pay additional compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellants together with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of application i.e. 17 th April 1980 till the deposit of the amount with the tribunal. ii) Time of four months is granted to the 3 rd respondent to comply with the Award. As and when additional compensation is deposited, the tribunal will pass an order of disbursement of the amount after hearing the parties. iii) Appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs. JUDGE