1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 959 OF 2009 IN CLAIM APPLICATION NO. 370 OF 2000 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4245 OF 2007 National Insurance Company Ltd. ) Office at Red Cross Building, ) M.G.Road, Pune-411 001 ) Cover Note No. 496844 ) Period 10/8/98 to 9/8/99 ).. Appellant (Insurer/Org.Opp.No.2) Vs. 1. Rohidas Bhagwan Sarode, ) Age 50 years, Occ.Nil. ) 2. Vatsala Rohidas Sarode ) Age 48 years,Occ: Household. ) 3. Sita Rohidas Sarode ) Age 17 years, Occ: Nil. ) 4. Geeta Rohidas Sarode ) Age 15 years, Occ: Nil. ) 5. Nita Rohidas Sarode ) Age 13 years, Occ: Nil. ) Respondent nOs. 3 to 5 now major. ) All R/at H.No.441/1, Ganesh Nagar ) Thergaon, Tal. Mulshi Dist. Pune. ) 6. Chintamani c. More ) Age Adult, Occ: Busiess. ) 2 R/o. 247, P. Golghar, ) Shivdarshan, Pune-9. ) (Owner of Tempo No. MH-14-5033) ) 7. Bramhadeo B.Waghmode ) Age Adult, Occ: Business. ) Residing at Gomewadi, Tah. Atpadi, ) Dist. Sangli. ) (Owner of Tuck No.MH-10-A-6212) ) 8. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ) Sharda Centre, 2nd floor, ) Near Nal Stop of Karve Road, ) Pune 411 004. )..Respondents Mr. N.G.Ghotekar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.J.pawar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Ranjan B. Tripathi, i/b. S.M.Vidyarthi, Advocates for respondent nO.8. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 4th August, 2009. JUDGMENT. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The deceased was 25 years old. He had died in a motor accident. The parents and younger brothers and sisters of the deceased Sharad Rohidas Sarode filed petition No.370 of 2000 before the M.A.C.T., Pune. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo bearing No.MH-14-5033 owned by the opponent No.1 and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 3 opponent No.2 which is the appellant before this Court. The Tribunal also came to conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased could be assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per month and after deducting his personal expenses at the 1/3rd of the income, the loss of dependency for the claimant would be Rs.1334/- per month and annual loss of dependency would be Rs.16,008/-. By applying the multiplier of 17, he fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,72,136/- Added to the said amount was the amount of Rs.9,500/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and loss of love and affection. Thus, the total compensation amount awarded was Rs.2,81,600/- including no fault liability. The present appellant was directed to pay the amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till the realisation of the amount. That award has been challenged in the present appeal. 3. After some discussion at the Bar, the learned Counsel for the appellant only contended that the Tribunal committed error in applying multiplier of 17 taking into consideration only the age of the deceased, but ignoring the ages of his parents who were 50 years and 48 years old respectively at the time of filing the petition. According to him, the multiplier of 13 would be reasonable. In view of this, both the learned Counsel agreed that the impugned order could be modified suitably by applying the multiplier of 13. In view of this, the total 4 loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,08,000/- to which the amount of Rs.9,500/- towards the expenses of funeral, loss of estate, love and affection may be added. 4. In view of the above, the Appeal stands disposed of with the following order :- (1) The Appeal is partly allowed. Para 2 of the impugned order stands modified as follows:- (2) The opponent Nos. 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.2,17,500/- to the appellant with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the application before the Tribunal till the amount is deposited. (3) The learned Counsel makes a statement that the amount is already deposited. Therefore, the excess amount, if any, shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the present appellant/original opponent no.2 National Insurance Co. Ltd. The remaining part of the impugned order shall remain intact. In case, the appellant has deposited any other amount over and above the compensation amount with this Court, that amount shall also be allowed to be withdrawn. 5. As the Appeal itself is disposed of finally, the C.A. does not survive 5 and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)