1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2005 1. Smt. Angelina Barretto aged 48 years, widow, resident of House No.55, Pateapur Nuvem, Salcete Goa. ... Appellant versus 1. Shri Sucorro Miranda son of Pedro Miranda driver and owner of vehicle bearing registration number GA 02/T-8051 resident of House Number 103, Kirbhat, Nuvem, Salcete Goa. 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. insurer of vehicle bearing registration No.GA 02-T-8051, Margao-Goa. ... Respondents Shri S. S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri E. Afonso, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT The quantum of compensation payable to the mother, on account of the death of her son, is the issue involved in this First Appeal. 2. The appellant herein is the claimant. The claimant is the mother of the deceased. Her son Jacinto Quadros died in an accident on 3-7-1997. She was about 41 years of age at the time of the accident. He was about 21 years of age. He died in an accident which took place on 3-7-1997 when he was returning in a tempo along with CW2/Milagres Fernandes, CW4/Menino Andrade, and two others from Sancordem where they had gone to cast a slab. The accident took place at Dharbandora. The tempo was owned and driven by Respondent No.1 and was insured with Respondent No.2, the Respondents in the Claim Petition. The said tempo was being driven in a fast speed, and went off the road and rested against a tree and the cement mixer with which they were returning fell over the deceased causing his death. The Respondents did not lead any evidence. The evidence of CW2/Milagres and CW4/Menino was more than sufficient to conclude that the said tempo was being driven in a rash or negligent manner causing the death of the said deceased Jacinto Quadros. 3. Liability is not disputed. The dispute raised is first regarding the income of the deceased. 3 4. The Claim Petition was originally filed by both the parents. The father of the deceased died soon thereafter. The learned M.A.C.T. considered the income of the deceased on notional basis i.e. Rs.1,250/- per month, and this inspite of the fact that the claimant had stated that the deceased was their only child and was earning about Rs.100/- per day and that her husband too was earning Rs.100/- per day. CW2/Milgares Fernandes who was also a co- labourer along with the deceased, had also stated that at the relevant time the male labourers were paid Rs.100/- per day and women labourers were paid Rs.60/- per day. He had further stated that the deceased was paid Rs.100/- per day. The evidence of the claimant and CW2/Milagres, in my view, was more than sufficient to conclude that the income of the deceased was Rs.100/- per day. The claimant had proved that the deceased was returning from work, after casting a slab along with his co-workers. The Respondents had led no evidence to the contrary. The evidence led on behalf of the claimant, in my view, was more than sufficient to conclude that the income of the deceased was Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3000/- per month. Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel submits that at least on Sundays the deceased might have not gone for work, and, therefore four Sundays be excluded. One need not assess the income with mathematical precision. If the choice is between being tightfisted or open handed, it is safer to err on the side of being open handed. In my view the income of the deceased could be taken as Rs.3000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per year. 4 5. The father of the deceased was working, prior to his death as a labourer. The deceased was their only son and was a bachelor. The Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and others((1994) 2 SCC 176) reiterated that the multiplier method is the sound method of assessing compensation and there should be no departure from the multiplier method which provides for payment of just compensation and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty to the awards made all over the country. In Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation(2009() ALL MR 429) the Apex Court noted that in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport v. Susamma Thomas(supra) it was observed that in the absence of evidence, it is not unusual to deduct one-third of the gross income towards the personal living expenses of the deceased and treat the balance as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family/dependants; and in UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra(1996(4) SCC 362) it was held that if the number of dependants in the family of the deceased was large, in the absence of specific evidence in regard to contribution to the family, the Court may adopt the unit method for arriving at the contribution of the deceased to his family. In the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another(supra) the Apex Court noted that no evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the deceased for any evidence in that behalf will be wholly unverifiable and likely to be unreliable. Claimants will obviously tend to claim 5 that the deceased was very frugal and did not have any expensive habits and was spending virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it may be so. No claimant would admit that the deceased was a spendthrift, even if he was one. It is also very difficult for the Respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceased was spending a considerable part of the income on himself or that he was contributing only a small part of the income on his family, and, therefore it became necessary to standardize the deductions to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. This led to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was married, and one-half(50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. Considering the facts of the case, therefore, it would be appropriate to deduct 50% of the amount assessed as the annual income of the deceased, and that will give us the figure of dependency of the mother as Rs.18,000/- per year. 6. The Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others(supra) has held that the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependant on the age of the deceased and for example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants were his parents, the age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier. The Apex Court in Ramesh Singh and another 6 v. Satbir Singh and another((2008) 2 SCC 667) observed that taking the age of the deceased to be 55 years the Courts below had not committed any illegality in applying the multiplier of 8, based on the father's age. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak and others((2007) 10 SCC 1) the Apex Court took the multiplier of 5 considering the fact that the mother of the deceased was about 65 years at the time of the accident and the age of the father was more than 65 years. What follows therefrom is that when compensation is payable on account of the death of the children the age of the parents is also to be taken note of. Considering the age of the mother, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 14, and that would work out the compensation payable to Rs.2,52,000/-. To that, can be added a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life as was done by the Apex Court in the case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others(supra) and another sum of Rs.4,500/- for funeral expenses and loss of estate and that will work out to a total compensation payable to the claimant to Rs.2,66,500/-. 7. The learned M.A.C.T. granted interest to be paid at 6%. It is seen from Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and another((2003) 3 SCC 148) that interest ordered to be paid was 9% with a further observation that the rate of interest would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case which would normally depend on the Bank 7 rate prevailing at the relevant time. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak and others(supra) the interest ordered to be paid was at 7.5%. In Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another(supra) it was 6%. Considering the facts of the case, therefore, I am inclined to retain the interest awarded at 6% from the date of the Claim Petition. 8. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds partly. The award dated 19-10-2004 is hereby modified and the claimant-mother is held entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,66,500/- which the Respondents are directed to pay to the claimant with pending and future interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the petition. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD