-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.17302 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3987 OF 2008 National Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant. Vs. Sandhya Suresh Kardile & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.N.G.Ghotekar for the appellant. Mr.Abhay Kumar Apte for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2008. PC: PC: PC: . Heard Mr.Ghotekar, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr.Apte, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants, except respondent no.4, who is the owner of the vehicle. 2. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Pune on 4.2.2008 in M.A.C.P. No.1208 of 2004. 3. The applicants before the Tribunal were the Legal Representatives of the deceased Suresh Kisan Kardile, who died in road accident that has taken place on 17.6.2004 while he was driving his Hero Honda motorcycle on Nagar-Pune Highway. He was dashed by the truck No.MA-02/C-3355. The deceased was of the age of -2- 31 years and had left behind him his widow, two minor children and mother. He had agriculture income and was also employed on monthly salary of Rs.3,362/-. The 7 X 12 extracts of the land held by the deceased were also brought on record so as to point out that he had 1/4th share in Kardile Family holding. It was claimed that the agricultural income of the deceased was Rs.60,000/- per year. The learned Member of the Tribunal on consideration of holding in the name of the deceased came to the conclusion that the income from agricultural land available to the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per annum. From the evidence on record the tribunal further noticed that the last drawn salary of the deceased was Rs.3,362/- per month and there was no definite proof of deduction to be made from the salary. The net monthly income was taken as Rs.3,000/-. The tribunal held that annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.36,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount from the same the annual dependency of the applicants on the salary income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.24,000/-. Having regards to the future increase in the salary of the deceased, the tribunal fixed annual income of the deceased by way of Rs.30,000/- per annum and loss of agricultural income of Rs.5,000/- thus making total of Rs.35,000/- per annum. The deceased is 31 years of age. The appropriate multiplier was fixed at 17. By applying the same multiplier the -3- compensation amount came to (Rs.35,000/- X 17) Rs.5,95,000/-. In addition, the amount of Rs.20,000/- has been granted for the loss of consortium and loss of estate. 4. Mr.Ghotekar, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the multiplier fixed at 17 is erroneous and as per him the multiplier could be around 14. Mr.Ghotekar also submitted that the tribunal was not right in fixing annual income of Rs.35,000/- for the dependency of the claimants. Mr.Ghotekar referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. K.S.Bindu and Others 2006 (1) Corporation Ltd. Vs. K.S.Bindu and Others 2006 (1) Corporation Ltd. Vs. K.S.Bindu and Others 2006 (1) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.) 5. In the case of K.S.Bindu K.S.Bindu K.S.Bindu (supra) the deceased was of the age of 34 years and had left behind the widow, two minor children and mother. Though the tribunal had applied the multiplier of 17, the Supreme Court reduced it to 13. It referred to the earlier case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and Others U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and Others U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others 1996 (4) SCC 362 Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others 1996 (4) SCC 362 Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others 1996 (4) SCC 362 and noted that the highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the -4- normal retirement age. 6. In the instant case we are satisfied that the annual income for dependency at Rs.35,000/- determined by the tribunal is proper and calls for no interference. However, on the point of multiplier, having regards to the decision in the case of K.S.Bindu K.S.Bindu K.S.Bindu (supra) it would be appropriate to fix the multiplier at 15. Thus the compensation payable to the claimants would be (Rs.35,000/- X 15) i.e. Rs.5,25,000/-. In addition, the amount of Rs.20,000/- as directed by the tribunal shall be paid to the claimants. 7. We accordingly modify the impugned award and hold that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,45,000/- as against the amount of Rs.6,15,000/- by way of compensation and the claim application stands partly allowed accordingly. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal stands modified by fixing the compensation at Rs.5,45,000/- and the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly or severally pay to the applicants and Opponent No.3 the balance sum of compensation amounting to Rs.4,95,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of application till its realisation. . From the deposited amount with the Tribunal the -5- following investments shall be made : (a) An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) be invested by way of FDR with a nationalised Bank in the names of Applicant Nos.2 and 3, till they attain majority. (b) An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) be invested in the name of applicant no.1 in the very same nationalised Bank in FDR for a period of six years. (c) Balance amount, if any, from the award amount (Rs.4,95,000/- plus 7.5% interest) shall be paid to the applicant no.1 by an account payee cheque drawn by the Tribunal. (d) The applicant no.1 will receive quarterly interests on the FDRs. 8. Balance amount from the deposited amount be refunded to the appellant - Insurance Company by an account payee cheque. 9. Civil application does not survive hence it is disposed off as such. -6- (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)