1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2303 OF 2007 Kusum Pandurang Bhosale-Patil Appellant versus S.Ramesh s/o Subrabiyam Respondent Pratap Patil for appellant. D.S.Joshi for respondent no.4. Shyam Walve i/by Arati Barve for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 28th October 2010 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is already admitted. Taken up for final disposal. 2. The applicants are claimants in a claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondents are the opponents in the claim petition. The claim was filed on account of death of deceased Pandurang in a motor accident. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, has directed the third and fourth respondents to jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs.2.37 lakh to the appellant with 9% p.a. interest thereon. 3. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and has made 1/3rd deduction. The Multiplier of 11 has been applied considering the age of the deceased. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is a 2 clear arithmetical error in the impugned judgment. He pointed out that after deducting 1/3rd from Rs.5,000/- the monthly dependency comes to Rs.3,333=34 Ps. and thus the yearly dependency will come to Rs. 40,000/-. However, the Tribunal has taken the yearly dependency at Rs. 20,000/-. His submission is that the compensation amount ought to have been Rs.4.40 lakhs taking the yearly dependency at Rs.40,000/- by applying multiplier of 11. 5. There is no appeal preferred by any of the respondents. There is no cross objection filed. I have heard the learned counsel for 4th respondent. 3rd respondent is already served. 6. From the perusal of the impugned judgment and in particular paragraph no.17 thereof, it is obvious that there is an error in the calculation. The yearly dependency ought to have been taken at Rs. 40,000/- and by applying multiplier of 11, the amount of compensation should be Rs.4.40 lakhs. The error has crept in as the learned Member of the Tribunal has taken the yearly dependency at Rs.20,000/-, though the monthly dependency was taken at Rs.3,333=34 Ps.. Thus, the appellants are entitled to enhancement of Rs.2.20 lakhs. 7. Hence, I pass following order :- a) Appeal is partly allowed; b) In addition to the compensation granted under the impugned judgment and award, the 3rd and 4th respondents shall pay compensation of Rs.2.20 lakh (Rs.Two lakh twenty thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization; c) Rest of the award stands confirmed; d) Time of three months is granted to the 4th respondent to deposit 3 the compensation amount; e) There will be no orders as to costs; f) Civil Application No.3668 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)