1 FA 567.95 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 567 OF 1995 National Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant Vs Shri Kasaji Hira Gujar & Others. .. Respondents -- Shri Ranjan Tripathi i/by Shri S.S. Vidyarthi for the Appellant. Shri G.S. Hegde with Shri C.M. Lokesh for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and award made by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition filed by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. By the impugned Judgment and Award, compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum has been granted. The claim petition was filed for claiming compensation on account of death of one Mangilal. The 3rd Respondent is the widow of the said Mangilal and 1st and 2nd Respondents are the parents of the deceased. The Appellant is the insurer of the offending vehicle 2 FA 567.95 involved in the accident. The claim was defended by the Appellant after obtaining a leave of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1888 ( hereinafter referred to as the “said Act” ). ‘ 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that though there is no specific evidence of any income earned by the deceased from his alleged milk business, by taking his income as Rs.1,500/- per month, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation. He invited attention of the Court to the evidence of the witnesses examined by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. He submitted that though the 1st Respondent claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and was sending Rs.2,500/- per month to his native place by money orders, he could not place any documentary evidence to substantiate the said contention. He invited attention of the Court to the second witness Shri Bhavarlal. He pointed out that even the said witness could not establish that the deceased used to purchase 35 to 40 litres of milk daily and used to earn Rs.3/- per litre. He pointed out that the evidence of the three other witnesses examined by the Claimants does not advance the case of the Claimants to prove that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,500/- per month. He submitted that there is absolutely no documentary evidence of the milk business carried on by the deceased. He submitted that multiplier of 18 applied by the Tribunal is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, [ (2009)6 SCC 121 ] and the 3 FA 567.95 proper multiplier would be 17. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st to 3rd Respondents submitted that the finding of the Tribunal as regards the income of the deceased cannot be disturbed. He submitted that the multiplier 18 has been applied as per the concession of the learned counsel appearing of the Appellant. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The only issue to be considered is regarding the quantum of compensation There does not seem to be any dispute on any other aspect. The 1st Respondent stepped into the witness box. He stated that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 25 years. He stated that the deceased used to purchase milk from dairy and used to supply to different persons and earn income of about Rs. 3,000/- per month. In the cross-examination, the 1st Respondent admitted that during 4 or 5 years, the deceased had never sent any money order to him. He denied the correctness of the suggestion that his son was sending Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per month to him. The claimants examined one Bhavarlal who deposed that he was the Proprietor of Banaras Dairy and the deceased used to purchase 35 to 40 litres of milk from him. He deposed that the deceased must be earning Rs.3/- per litre by selling the milk. He deposed that the deceased used to purchase milk everyday at the rate of Rs.10/- per litre. He stated that the deceased used to sit in his shop and used to work for two hours in the evening and the witness used to pay the deceased Rs.10/- per day. It is pertinent to note that the said witness has signed the claim as a constituted attorney of the 1st Respondent. In the cross- 4 FA 567.95 examination, he admitted that he has not kept any record to show the supply of 35 to 40 litres of milk to the deceased Mangilal. The other three witnesses examined by the Claimants deposed that the deceased used to supply milk to the said witnesses either at the rate of Rs.12/- per litre or Rs.13/- per litre. 4. Perusal of the evidence adduced by the 1st to 3rd Respondents shows that it is sufficiently established that the deceased was in the business of selling milk. It is true that there is no concrete evidence as regards the income earned by the deceased from the milk business. The three customers of the deceased were examined who deposed that every morning the deceased used to supply milk to them. The finding of the Tribunal is that the income of the deceased was around Rs.1,500/- per month. It is true that as per the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. In the impugned judgment, the learned Member of the Tribunal has recorded a concession made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that the multiplier would be 18. After applying the multiplier 18, the compensation amount of Rs.2,16,000/- has been granted to which addition of Rs.15,500/- has been made on account of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 5. The Tribunal constituted under the said Act of 1988 is not bound by the strict rules of evidence. The income of the deceased taken at Rs.1,500/- per month is reasonable. The deceased was only 26 years old and prospects of 5 FA 567.95 increase in his earnings in future have not been considered by the Tribunal. In these peculiar facts of the case, it is not possible to find fault with the multiplicand and multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. 6. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 7. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the Appellant in this Court with interest accrued thereon shall be paid over to the Appellant. ( A.S. OKA, J ) .