1 ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 515 OF 1995 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Appellant Vs Shaikh Afique S/o. Shaikh Aziz. .. Respondent -- Shri G.S. Hegde with Shri C.M. Lokesh for the Appellant. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are served with notice. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. The Appellant is the Opponent No.1 in a Claim Petition filed by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. The Claim Petition is filed on account of demise of Shaikh Shafique Shaikh Aziz, who died in an accident on 15th May, 1991. The 1st Respondent is the mother of the deceased and the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents are respectively the brothers and sisters of the deceased. The deceased was plying a moped. At that time, one State Transport Bus came from the opposite direction. The allegation is that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and gave a dash to the 2 moped and as a result, the deceased and the pillion rider were thrown from the moped due to the forceful impact of the accident. The claim was contested by the Appellant by contending that there was no negligent on the part of the Driver of the bus of the Appellant. It was contended that infact, the deceased was driving the moped in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by the Appellant. The Tribunal accepted that the income of the deceased was Rs.2,000/- per month. The Tribunal made deduction of 1/3rd amount on account of personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier 15 has been applied. The Tribunal added the amount of Rs.4,000/- towards the funeral expenses etc. and the compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has made submissions on the grounds of negligent and quantum. As far as quantum is concerned, he submitted that only the mother can be said to be dependent. He submitted that the multiplier will be determined by the age of the mother. He submitted that the deceased was unmarried. The deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses is on the lower side. 3. It must be stated that another Appeal was preferred by the Appellant being First Appeal No.452 of 1995. The appeal arose out of the Claim Petition filed by the deceased pillion rider in which the Tribunal had passed an award in favour of the claimants holding that the accident 3 occurred due to the negligent driving of the bus owned by the Appellant. The record of the First Appeal No.452 of 1995 was called for. It is found that on 20th January, 2001, the appeal has been disposed of by the Lok Adalat. The Claimants accepted the sum of Rs.1,75,468/- in full and final settlement of their claim. Thus, the Appellant accepted the finding of negligence against its driver. Therefore, the only issue which is required to be dealt with is of quantum. The age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of death. The claim Petition discloses that the age of the 1st Respondent mother was 45 years. The Tribunal has accepted that the deceased was earning the salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. A certificate issued by the employer was placed on record. A claim was made that apart from the salary, the deceased was earning Rs.1,000/- to 1,500/- by doing the extra work. However, this claim was not accepted and the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased only of Rs.2,000/- per month. The deceased was bachelor. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., [(2009)6 SCC 121 ], 50% of the amount will be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, monthly dependency will be of Rs.1,000/- and yearly dependency will be of Rs.12,000/-. As the age of the 1st Claimant mother was more than the age of the deceased, the multiplier will have to be determined on the basis of the age of the mother. Considering the fact that the age of the mother was 45 years, the multiplier of 14 will have to be applied. Applying the multiplier of 14, the compensation amount comes to Rs.1,68,000/-. By adding an amount of Rs. 4 12,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, the compensation comes to Rs.1,80,000/-. To that extent, the impugned award will have to be modified. 4. Hence, I pass the following order. (a) The impugned award is modified. The total compensation payable will be Rs.1,80,000/- ( inclusive of the amount under “No Fault Liability” ). Rest of the award regarding interest and costs is confirmed. (b) The amount deposited by the Appellant in this Court together with interest accrued thereon shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal. After hearing the parties concerned, the Tribunal will pass an order of withdrawal and/or disbursement of the amount to the parties. (c) There will be no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J)