1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.680 OF 2003. 1) Subhadra Ganpat Agarkar and others. - APPELLANTS (orig.Claimants) VERSUS 1) Ankush s/o Ramchandra Karpe and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.DR Jaybhar,Advocate for Appellants; Mr.VN Upadhye, Advocate for Resp.No.3. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5-A served. Mr.PP Bafna, Advocate for Resp.No.6. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard. Admit. The matter is finally decided at admission stage. 2) The deceased, an employee in Zilla Parishad, aged 45, expired in the accident. The claimants, six dependents, moved a petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, staking claim for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The 2 learned Member, MACT, Ahmednagar, on assessment of the monthly earnings; agricultural income; pension, reached to the conclusion of awarding Rs.3,34,800/- with interest @ 9% p.a.. This is questioned by the claimants on the grounds - a) the learned Judge has not considered the agricultural income; and b) the multiplier of 11 is wrongly applied. 3) On hearing, following points arise for my consideration - (i) Whether the learned Judge erred in not considering the agricultural income or applying the multiplier of 11; (ii) What order. My findings are - (i) no error/mistake on the part of the learned Judge and (ii) no interference with the impugned order calls for. 4) REASONS. The 7/12 extract of the agricultural field indicated, it was a fallow land. The learned Judge found that the bereaved family received a wholesome gratuity and the family was receiving regular pension after demise of the earning member. P.W.1 has stated that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.6,000/-, however, it is not proved. On the contrary, the salary details at Exhibit-76 showed that the 3 monthly take-home salary of the deceased from Zilla Parishad was Rs.3431/-. The learned Judge has reduced the same from the gross income of the salary and computed it @ Rs.2400/- per month and the annual pecuniary loss is treated to be Rs. 28,800/-. There is no mistake on this count. The agricultural income, as stated above, was not at all derived by the family and consequently, the learned Judge was justified in ignoring the same. So far as the application of multiplier of 11 is concerned, though I find that there are five dependents, Sanjay, at the material time, was a major son, he could not be branded to be a dependent. The salary accounts provided and age of the deceased and the claimants, were matching to the multiplier of 11, in tune with the parameters indicated in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The application of interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition also makes out good compensation for the claimants as the petition was filed in the year 1995 while the order is dated 30th March, 2002. 5) Taking stock of above facts, no merit. First Appeal dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa680.03