1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 208/2004. 1. Shri Sahadev Ghanashyam Gaonkar, Gavandiwado, Karapur, Sankhali, Goa. 2. Smt. Subhadra Sahadev Gaonkar, Gavandiwado, Karapur, Sankhali, Goa. … Appellants. (Original Claimants) V/s 1. Raghunath Mahadev Gawas, Khokral, Post Usap, Sawantwadi, Maharashtra, 2. Shri Laxman Jairam Sawant, Nawawada, Saravan, Bicholim, Goa. 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bicholim Branch, Bicholim, Goa. … Respondents. (Original Respondents) Shri R. V. Kamat, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri E. Afonso, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. 2 CORAM : F. M. REIS , J. DATE : 15 th October 2010 . ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 13.5.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Panaji in Claim Petition No. 99/1996. 2. The appellants who are the claimants filed the Claim Petition on the ground that on 3.4.1996 the deceased Shivaji Sahadev. Gaonkar who was proceeding from Bicholim to Sankhali on his Yamaha Motor cycle alongwith pillion rider met with a motor vehicle accident in view of the rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 who was driving a tempo. As a result of the dash by the said tempo the said Shivaji sustained head injuries which resulted in his death. The appellants who are the parents of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming the compensation from the Respondents. The learned Tribunal after examining the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Respondent No. 1 drove the tempo in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident which led to the death of 3 Shivaji S. Gaonkar. 3. On perusal of the evidence on record the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rashness and negligence of the respondent No. 1 which led to the death of Shivaji S. Gaonkar. There is no challenge to the said finding of the learned Tribunal. 4. The only grievance before this Court is regarding the quantum of compensation. The learned Tribunal while assessing the quantum of compensation has come to the conclusion that the monthly earning of the deceased was Rs. 3000 per month. In that regard, there is no infirmity committed by the learned Tribunal on that count. The deceased was a mason by profession and was also taking contract for masonry works for houses etc. Whilst fixing the multiplier in the present case, the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the father was 60 years old. In fact, in his deposition Aw1 has stated that he is 65 years old on the date of his deposition which took place in December 2003. The accident admittedly had occured on 3.4.1996 and as such his age would be 58 years old then. The learned Counsel 4 for the Respondent No. 3 disputed the age of the father as no birth certificate had been produced by the Appellants. In the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2009 (4) ALL MR 429 the multiplier to be applied in such circumstances would be 9. But however considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as no evidence has been adduced to ascertain the correct age of Aw1, I find that the multiplier to be applied would be 8 in the present case. Considering the said multiplier the amount works out to 3000 x 12 x 8 = Rs. 2,88,000/-. The learned Tribunal has given a reduction of 60% on account of personal expenses. Considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) as the deceased was a bachelor and dependents are parents 50% is to be deducted on account of personal expenses. The amount as such works out to Rs. 1,44,000/-. As such the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal would have to be modified to that extent. Besides the said amount the appellants would also be entitled for compensation on account of transport expenses at Rs. 1000/-, funeral expenses of Rs. 3000/-, loss of estate of Rs. 5000/- besides damages to the motor cycle of Rs. 10,000/- which aggregates to a sum of Rs. 19,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Adding up the said 5 amounts, the total compensation works out to Rs. 1,63,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified and the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally the sum of Rs. 1,63,000/- to the appellants together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition until payment. The rest of the award passed by the learned Tribunal is confirmed. 6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. MF/-