:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 533 OF 1995 1. Smt. Dr. Vijaya Suryakant Katkar Aged 35 years. 2. Miss. Kumudini Suryakant Katkar Aged 11 years. 3. Rupesh Suryakant Katkar, Aged 10 years. 4. Amol Suryakant Katkar Aged 9 years. Petitioner No.1 - Mother ..Appellants Vs. 1. Shankar Malhari Shinde 1A.Smt.Chhabitai Shankar Shinde 1B.Shri Dilip Shankar Shinde 1C.Shri Gajanan Shankar Shinde 1D.Santosh Shankar Shinde 2. The Jawali Co-operative Bank Limited, Bombay. 3. Jijaba Jagannath Bhunge 4. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Pune ..Respondents Mr. R.A. Thorat with Mr. P.J. Thorat for appellants. Mr. K.B. Sonwalkar for respondent nos.1A to 1D and 3. Mr. Pradip Gole for respondent no.2. Ms. Anita Agarwal for respondent no.4. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. Date : February 09, 2009. Date : February 09, 2009. Date : February 09, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.): 1. This appeal arises from the award passed by :2: the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Satara on 21/1/1994 in MACT Petition No. 150 of 1986 filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appellants, who are the original Claimant Nos.1, 3 and 4, are not satisfied by the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the impugned award and the said amount of compensation has been fixed at Rs.2,59,000/- (including no fault liability) together with proportionate costs and future interest at the rate of Rs.12% P.A. from the date of the petition till the realisation of the whole award amount. 2. The deceased was the husband of Claimant No.1 - Dr. Vijaya Katkar and the father of Claimant Nos.3 to 5. Claimant No.2 - Rajesh Suryakant Katkar died in another accident during the pendency of the claim before the Tribunal. 3. The deceased - Suryakant s/o Anandrao alias Anna Bayaji Katkar was a Medical Practitioner at Dahiwadi and on the fateful date i.e. on 28/1/1986 he was travelling by his Motorcycle (Registration No.MTK :3: 3681) from Satara to Dahiwadi along with a pillion rider by name Pandurang Bhutkar in the night. At about 9.15 p.m. when he was to reach Pusegaon, a truck bearing No. MTD 3927 came from the opposite direction and the said truck was travelling from Pusegaon to Satara in the opposite direction. The deceased Suryakant was driving the motorcycle and it appears, following a scooterist. As per the claimants, the driver of the truck flashed the dipper light and, therefore, the deceased could not see the truck and the truck gave a dash to the motorcycle, as a result of which the motorcycle got entangled with the truck and both the motorcyclist as well as the pillion rider were thrown off the truck. They had sustained injuries and both of them were shifted to the hospital by a private jeep and within few hours Dr.Katkar died on account of the injuries that he had sustained during the accident. The claimants had claimed a compensation of Rs.11,85,588/- under various heads, including the expenses for the repairs of the motorcycle. 4. The Opponent No.1 was the owner of the truck, :4: whereas Opponent No.3 was the driver of the said truck. Opponent No.2 was the Co-operative Bank which had financed the said truck and, therefore, it was hypothecated in favour of the Bank. Opponent No.4 was the Insurance Company. Opponent Nos.1 and 3 filed a joint Written Statement at Exh.25 and denied the liability mainly on the ground that the motorcyclist was at fault, he was trying to overtake the scooterist and in that process he came and hit the truck which was in the opposite direction and was plying on the left hand side of the road. The Insurance Company filed its Written Statement at Exh.46 and denied that the truck was insured with it. In the alternative it claimed that the driver of the truck was not at fault and the and the motorcyclist was negligent and, therefore, on the ground of the contributory negligence, the claim made was exorbitant and could not be allowed. The Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the claim against the Opponent No.2- Co-operative Bank and rightly so. The claimants examined in all three wintesses in support of the claim i.e. Dr.Vijaya Katkar - Claimant No.1, Shri Pandurang Bhutkar - the pillion rider and Shri Chimanlal F. Mehta - Income :5: Tax Consultant who was filing income tax returns of the deceased as well as claimant no.1. On behalf of the opponents, Opponent No.3 - Jijaba Bhunge, the driver was examined. Though in its Written Statement the Insurance Company had denied that the truck was insured with it, the same contention was given up during the trial. 5. The factum of the accident is not in dispute. The Panchanama of the scene of accident as well as the place of accident is on record at Exh.62. It shows that the brake marks of the truck covered the area of about 35 ft. whereas brake marks of the motorcycle covered the area of about 25 ft. and the motorcycle got entangled between the two front wheels of the truck and the truck moved with the motorcycle for about 12 ft. On the left hand side of the truck, there was a mark of the motorcycle on the bumper and the truck had moved about 3 to 4 ft. (left side wheel) of the tar road. The driver of the truck stated that he saw a scooterist and motorcyclist coming from the opposite direction and the motorcyclist was trying to overtake the scooterist. :6: But the scooterist was not allowing the motorcyclist to overtake from the right hand side and, therefore, in that race the motorcyclist came on his right hand side and he signaled the motorcyclist by dim lights but he would not stop. The truck driver had applied the brakes but the motorcyclist lost control on his vehicle and came in front of the truck. The Tribunal examined the panchanama as well as the depositions of the pillion rider and the driver of the truck and recorded a finding that there was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist as well. However, the larger contributory negligence was attributed to the truck driver. The Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the Claimant No.1 and the deceased were running "Dr. Katkar Hospital" as a partnership venture. The income tax returns filed for the years 1984-86 indicated that net annual income of the deceased was Rs.30,000/-. The deceased was expected to spend at least Rs.2000/- p.m. from his income. The deceased was of 41 years of age. The Tribunal calculated the annual income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- minus Rs.6000/- and his contribution to :7: the family was taken at Rs.24,000/- P.A. with the multiplier of 15, the total amount came to Rs.3,60,000/-. Rs.10,000/- was granted towards consortium, mental shock etc. Thus making the total compensation of Rs.3,70,000/-. 6. Mr. Thorat the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in fixing 30% liability of contributory negligence on the deceased and the income assessed by the Tribunal as also factually incorrect. We have perused the panchanama at Exh.62 and the depositions of the pillion rider and the truck driver. In the Claim Petition itself the presence of a scooterist has been admitted . The scooterist was not examined before the Claims Tribunal. The panchanama at Exh.62 describes the scene of occurrence of the accident. The motorcycle was seen entangled between the two front wheels. The brake marks, though faint, of the motorcycle spread over about 25 ft. and that of the truck spread over about 35 ft. The truck has not moved on its right hand side while coming towards Satara but the panchanama indicates that the :8: motorcyclist had moved on his right hand side and inference could be safely drawn as has been done by the Tribunal that the motorcyclist was trying to overtake the scooterist and moved on his right hand side. In such circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be faulted in clamping 30% contributory negligence on the deceased. 7. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the net income assessed by the Tribunal is based on the documentary evidence as well as oral depositions of the Income Tax Consultant Mr. Mehta. It is also required to be noted that the hospital was being run as a partnership venture between husband and the wife and it has come on record that during the pendency of the claim petition, the income of the hospital had gone up. We do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in accepting the net income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. . Mr. Thorat also raised a grievance about the multiplier fixed by the Tribunal at 15. As per Mr.Thorat the multiplier ought to have been more than :9: 15, keeping in mind the fact that deceased was 41 years of age when he met with the accident. In support of these contentions Mr.Thorat has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of S. Chandra and ors. vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation [(1994) 2 SCC 189] and Jyoti Kaul and ors. vs. State of M.P. and anr. [(2002) 6 SCC 306]. In the case of Jyoti Kaul (Supra) on the issue of multiplier, the Apex Court made the following observations:- "5.......We find that there are different judgments by this Court giving different multipliers. This would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The multiplier system is sound in computing compensation is now well settled but what multiplier should be applied would depend on various circumstances. The age of the deceased, the age of the dependants, not only existing salary when he had, if any additional sum payable to the deceased depending upon the nature of job in which he was working, his chances of promotion, the life expectancy etc. :10: Hence the multiplier is bound to change to some degree." Mr. Thorat also submitted that the deceased was a doctor and he would have continued to practice till the age of 65 years. . In the instant case, admittedly, Claimant No.1 is a doctor herself and took over the reigns of "Dr.Katkar Hospital" on the demise of her husband. Claimant No.2 Rajesh died during the pendency of the claim petition and Claimant Nos. 3 to 5 were the remaining minor children of the deceased. So far as the appellant no.1 is concerned, in terms of financial requirements, it could be safely inferred that she had no dependency and, therefore, the dependency on the income of the deceased was relevant only in respect of the surviving children. The appellant no.1 being herself a doctor, the dependency of the children on the financial income of the father would also be further reduced. Taking all these obtaining circumstances into consideration, we find that the Tribunal did not err in fixing the multiplier at 15 :11: having regards to the fact that the age of the deceased was 41 years at the time of the accident. 8. Hence, we do not find any case to cause interference with the impugned award on any count and consequently this appeal must fail. The same is hereby dismissed. Costs in cause. (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)