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 NO.2004 OF 2007. FIRST APPEAL NO.2004 OF 2007. FIRST APPEAL NO.2004 OF 2007. United India Insurance Co Ltd. ...Appellant. Versus Ashok Murlidhar Deshpande & Ors. ...Respondents Shri S.S.Vidyarathi for the Appellant. Shri P.J.Pawar for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM: ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM: ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE : 17th January, 2008. DATE : 17th January, 2008. DATE : 17th January, 2008. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Heard advocates appearing or the parties. Taken up for hearing at the admission stage. The appeal is preferred by the insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. The challenge is to the judgment and award dated 12th December, 2006 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. The accident occurred on 20th August, 2002 at 09.45 a.m. The victim of the accident was walking along the road at about 09.45 a.m when she was given a dash by a motor jeep which was insured with the appellant. The claim for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was filed by the husband of the deceased and two unmarried daughters of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded compensation ... 2 ... of Rs.08,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is essentially as regards the applicability of multiplier of 10 adopted by the Tribunal. His submission is that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Lalnipuii (2007 ACJ Page 561), the multiplier ought to have been applied after taking into consideration the age of the claimants and the dependency. 4. The second submission is that for calculating the multiplicand, net income of the deceased ought to have been taken. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original claimants is that the deceased had two unmarried daughters. Considering this aspect, the multiplier of 10 has been rightly applied. He submitted that the learned Member of the Tribunal has taken into consideration the net income while calculating the multiplicand. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. Admittedly the age of the deceased was 52 years. She was employed with the Income Tax Department drawing ... 3 ... salary of Rs.14,756/- per month. Perusal of the judgment shows that the net income has been taken at Rs.10,000/- for calculating the multiplicand. While taking the net income, the learned Member of the Tribunal has even considered the income-tax payable by the deceased. One third of net income has been deducted on account of personal expenditure. Thus, he has deducted one third of yearly income of Rs.1,20,000/- and has taken the multiplicand at Rs.80,000/-. I find no fault with the calculation of the multiplicand. 6. As far as multiplier is concerned, it must be noted here that the age of the husband of the deceased at the time of accident was 60 years. Both the daughters were of marriageable age and therefore there can be hardly a monitory dependency of the daughters. The ages of the daughters shown in the claim petition are 26 and 24 years respectively. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (supra). In paragraph No.11 of the said decision the Apex Court has observed thus: "11. It is fairly a settled position in law that while parents are the claimants, the age of the deceased is not relevant and it is the ... 4 ... age of the claimants which would determine the multiplier to be adopted. On that score it is clear that the Tribunal’s assessment of the quantum of award was incorrect". The Apex Court was dealing with a case where the parents were the claimants. In the present case, the husband of the deceased whose age was at the relevant time 60 years is the claimant. There can be hardly any dependency of the daughters of the deceased as compared to the husband. The age of the deceased was 52 years. In many cases the Apex Court has applied multiplier of 12 in a case where deceased was 37 years old and multiplier of 13 in case where deceased was 32 years old. Considering the age of the husband and the age of the deceased, in the present case, multiplier could not have been more than six. Therefore, to that extent the impugned award will have to be set aside. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs.80,000 X 6 i.e Rs.04.80,000/-. The usual amount of Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal will have to be maintained. 7. Considering the facts of the case and respective ages of the claimants, it is not necessary to direct investment of any part of the compensation amount. ... 5 ... 8. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned judgment and award is modified. The compensation payable to the claimants will be Rs.04,90,000/- alongwith interest and proportionate costs as awarded under the impugned judgment and award. (ii) The amount payable to the claimants shall be apportioned in the following manner: . . Claimant No.1 : 60 % . . Claimant No.2 : 20 % and . . Claimant No.3 : 20% (iii) It is clarified that entire amount of compensation shall be distributed and it is not necessary to invest any amount in the fixed deposit. (iv) The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant in this Court shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal. ... 6 ... (v) Appeal is partly allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE