1 fa65­92j rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.65 OF 1992 Smt.Sindhubai Narayan Jadhav & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Mahadeo Gurupadappa Mangalwedhe & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Jaydeep P. Mane for the appellants. Mr. J. S. Chandanai for respondent No.3. Mr. S. N. Chandrachood for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr. D. R. Mahadik holding for S.R. Singh for respondent No.7. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : AUGUST 17, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Permission is granted to Mr. M. B. Kotak, advocate to withdraw his appearance for respondent No.7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. 2. This is an Appeal preferred by some of the original claimants in a claim petition filed under Section 110(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on account of death of one Narayan 2 fa65­92j Jadhav. The claim petition was filed by the appellants and respondent Nos. 8 to 10. Total compensation of Rs.1 lakhs was claimed by the original claimants. Compensation of Rs.64,800/­ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has passed an order regarding separate shares payable to the claimants in the compensation amount. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma & Others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another [2009 (6) SCC 121]. He pointed out that as the deceased was a regular employee of Maharashtra State Electricity Board, 50% of the salary should have been added on account of future prospects of increase in the earning. He submitted that the multiplier of 10 adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the multiplier ought to have been 16. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents pointed out that the first appellant is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The contention raised by the respondents cannot be accepted as compensation has been already granted by the Tribunal to the claimants. There is no cross appeals or cross objections filed by 3 fa65­92j the respondents. 5. The age of the deceased was 35 years and he was an employee of Maharashtra State Electricity Board drawing total salary of Rs.1200/­ per month. 1/4th amount has been deducted by the Tribunal from the net salary on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. However multiplier of only 10 has been applied. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma (supra), 50% of the amount ought to have been added towards future prospects of the earnings and multiplier ought to have been 16. The claim in the Appeal is confined only to a sum of Rs.35,200/­. By simple calculation, if the formula laid down in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra) is adopted, the total compensation payable will be much more than Rs.1 lakhs. 6. Hence, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.35,200/­ in addition to the compensation granted by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the additional amount will be available for benefit of all the original claimants and the order regarding disbursement of the additional amount will have to be passed by the Tribunal. On additional amount, interest will be payable at the rate of 7.5 per annum. 7. Hence, I pass the following order 4 fa65­92j :: O R D E R :: i. In addition to compensation granted by the Tribunal, all the claimants in claim petition No.26 of 1986 shall be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.35,200/­ with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the deposit of the amount with the Tribunal. The rest of the impugned award stands confirmed. Time of three months is granted to the concerned respondents to deposit the enhanced amount. ii. After the enhanced amount is deposited, the learned Member of the Tribunal will pass appropriate order regarding apportionment of the enhanced compensation amongst all the claimants. iii. Appeal is allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)