1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1263 OF 2008. Narsingh Sampatsingh Dhurve & Ors. Vs. Raminder Singh Alag & Ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Asghar Hussain Adv. for appellants. Shri A. A. Sambre Adv. for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 22 nd JULY, 2009. This is a First Appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,08,500/- to the appellant/claimants. 2. The facts necessary for the decision of the appeal are as follows: Deceased was working as a Cleaner who 2 met with an accident. He suffered injuries and died. It is the contention of the appellants that he was aged 19 years when he died and was earning Rs. 2000/- P. M. as salary. 3. Trial Court found that since no documentary evidence was tendered with regard to the salary of the deceased, it is required to take the income of the deceased at Rs. 1000/- P. M. and apply multiplier of 13. Appellants feel aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation awarded on that basis and prefer this first appeal. 4. Since no other question is raised before the Court the only thing which I am required to decide is whether the quantum that is awarded by the Court below was proper or not. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that although no documentary evidence has been produced before the Court below, the Court should not have taken Rs. 1000/- as monthly salary of the 3 deceased. He submits that even if the Schedule to Section 163-A is to be applied to the facts of the present case the income of the deceased could not be less than Rs.15,000/- P.A. He submits that if that is even applied at least he would be entitled to a higher amount of compensation. I find substance in the contention of the appellant that where no evidence with regard to the exact income of the deceased is available the Court has to go by the guidelines of the Schedule to Section 163-A. In no case therefore the annual income of the deceased could be taken at less than Rs. 15,000/- P. A. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the age of the deceased was 19 and parents are young , the Court should have applied multiplier of 16 or atleast 15. The Court has applied the multiplier of 13. Court is not only supposed to look at the age of the deceased and the parents but even the the dependency. Considering the age of the deceased as well as age of the parents and the dependency I think that a multiplier of 15 should have been applied. 4 8. The income of the deceased is therefore to be taken at Rs. 15,000/- P. A. out of which 1/3rd has to be deducted, that comes to Rs. 10,000/- P. A.. The same will have to be multiplied by 15. Parents therefore shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The award therefore will have to be modified to that extent. In the circumstances the appeal is partly allowed. The respondents 1 to 4 shall jointly and severally pay to the claimants Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 1,08,500/-. Said amount shall carry interest at 7.5% P. A. No order as to costs. JUDGE svk