1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2010 Laxman Tukaram Dhyse & oths. .... APPELLANTS V E R S U S Sudhakar Sitaram Ukalkar & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.N.Kalani, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for Resp. No 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 12/10/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. The present appellant had filed claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation on account of the death of their son Rahul, who died in an accident. The deceased Rahul was working as cleaner. The appellants claim compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,85,500/-. The appellants are aggrieved by non grant of the total compensation, as such have approached this Court. 2. Mr. Kalani, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased on record. His income was Rs. 2500/- per month plus bhatta that has not been considered by the Tribunal. According to him, even the compensation towards loss of love and 2 affection, pains and sufferings has not been granted. According to him, if notional income would be considered, the same would be Rs. 36,000/- per year. 3. Per contra, Mr. Chapalgaonkar , the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the Judgment of the trial Court and submitted that there is no proof of the income. The deceased was not the skilled labour. The Tribunal has rightly calculated the income. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the record and proceedings. 5. The factum of accident, negligence, age of the deceased are not disputed. The only dispute revolves around the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellants. Perusal of the record shows that the appellants have actually pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 2500/- per month. Even in deposition, the same fact has been stated. There is no reason to disbelieve the said fact. As such, it will have to be held that the deceased was earning Rs. 2500/- per month. The deceased was aged 19 years. The age of the father and mother of the deceased is shown to be 42 and 40 years respectively. In such circumstances, multiplier of 15 which is applied is proper. As the deceased was bachelor and only the parents are claimants, then in such circumstances, the half of the amount needs to be deducted towards the personal expenses and only half of the income would be considered for computing the loss of dependency. Taking into account this aspect, the said amount would come to Rs. 2,25,000/-. It seems 3 the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection and pains and sufferings. I award Rs. 10,000/- to each claimant on account of the same, that would come to Rs. 2,45,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate. I would maintain the same. As such, the appellants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 2,49,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs. 1,84,500/- as the total compensation. 6. In the result, I pass the following order. (i) The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified. It is held that the appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,49,500/-. (ii) The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,84,500/-. The appellants shall be entitled for further amount of Rs. 65,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of application till realization. The respondents shall jointly and severally pay said amount to the appellant. (iii) The present Appeal accordingly partly allowed with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/FA 412.10