1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.213 OF 2000. 1. Taramati W/o Baburao Mali, Aged 40 years, Occ.Household, R/o Ausa, Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur. 2. Ramakant S/o Baburao Mali, Age 25 years, Occ.Business, R/o Ausa, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur. 3. Vijaykumar S/o Baburao Mali, Age 20 years, Occ.Business, R/o Ausa, Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur.... Appellants. Versus 1. Chandrakant S/o Narayan Hanchate, Age adult, Occ.Business, R/o Bhausar Galli, Ausa (owner of vehicle) 2. Mahboob S/o Shahnoor Shaikh, Age adult,Occ.Driver, R/o Dandya Galli, Ausa, (driver of vehicle). 3. New India Insurance Company Ltd., Cover note No.327616 V/T, 24/10/1989 to 23/10/90 (Insurer). ... Respondents. ... Mr.Aashish Jadhavar, advocate holding for Mr.N.P.Patil (Jamalpurkar), advocate for the appellants. 2 Mr.M.L.Dharashive, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.V.N.Upadhya, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.10.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The claimants have filed the present appeal being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani. 2. The present appellants had filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal, Parbhani, on account of the death of Baburao, who was the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3. Deceased Baburao died in an accident when he was travelling with the claimant No.1 in a jeep owned by original Respondent No.1. The jeep turned turtle. Deceased Baburao died and the appellant No.1 suffered injuries. Deceased Baburao was aged 45-50 years. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties the Tribunal partly 3 allowed the claim petition. It awarded Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) on account of death of deceased Baburao and Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant No.1. 3. Mr.Aashish Jadhavar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that though there was evidence on record to show that deceased Baburao was an agriculturist holding 2 acres of the land, so also he was running hotel in the name of 'Gajanan Hotel'. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect and has awarded a very meager amount accepting Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) as the annual income of deceased Baburao. Mr.Jadhavar, learned counsel relied on the 7/12 extracts Exhs.42 and 43 and so also the receipts issued by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, showing the agricultural produce sold in a market. He also invited my attention to the part of the cross-examination, wherein it was suggested by the Respondents that even after the death of deceased Baburao, the hotel business was still going on and as such he 4 claimed that the Tribunal should have computed the annual income of the deceased at least as Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) p.a. 4. Mr.M.L.Dharashive, learned counsel for the Respondent owner of the vehicle supported the judgment of the Tribunal. 5. Per contra, Mr.Upadhye, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that no fault can be found in the judgment of the Tribunal as far as the compensation amount awarded is concerned. Mr.Upadhye, learned counsel submitted that though on record the 7/12 extracts are produced to show that deceased owned agricultural land. The said land was only two acres and even after death of deceased Baburao, the said agricultural land remains with the family and as such there would not be any loss on account of the same. Mr.Upadhye, further submits that there is no evidence about any income from the hotel business. In such circumstances, the income which is computed i.e. Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per annum is reasonable and proper. 5 Mr.Upadhye, further submits that the Schedule has been introduced on 14.11.1994 and the accident has occurred in the year 1990. As such the multiplier or notional income as is laid down in the schedule would not be applicable in the present case and that can not be considered as yardsticks for awarding compensation amount. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the respective parties, I have gone through the record and also the judgment delivered by the Tribunal. 7. Argument of Mr.Upadhye, the learned counsel that Schedule regarding multiplier and notional income has no retrospective operation and can not be considered is of no avail. The said schedule is merely a guideline. There is no question of retrospective or prospective operation of the said guideline. The said guideline is an aid to arrive at the compensation that is to be awarded. Even if the said schedule has been incorporated in the year 1994, still, for computing the amount to be awarded and the 6 multiplier to be applied, the assistance of the same can be had. 8. The fact that the deceased owned agricultural land is evident from the 7/12 extracts on record. He was also doing the agricultural operation is evident from the receipts issued by the A.P.M.C. showing sale of agricultural produce by the deceased. Even if it is considered that the agricultural land would remain with the family, still, the appellants would be entitled for supervisory charges as they would be required to employ a competent person to look after agricultural land. Further the fact of the deceased owning and running a hotel has also not been disputed by the Respondents while cross-examining the appellant No.1. In such circumstances, when the deceased was doing agricultural operations and was also running the hotel. Taking income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) p.a. would be too meager amount. Even computing the income by minimum standard or even if a notional income is computed, the same would not be less than Rs. 7 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) p.a. in the year 1990. As such I feel it appropriate to compute the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) p.a. Deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the loss that would be caused to the appellants would be Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) p.a. As the deceased was aged between 45-50, the multiplier as has been held by the Apex Court in case of "Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another" (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, of 13 would be appropriate. As such the loss of income can be computed as Rs.10,000/- x 13 i.e. Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lac thirty thousand). The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love and affection though it has awarded Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the appellant No.1 for loss of consortium. The appellants Nos.2 and 3 would be entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each i.e. Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) towards loss of love and affection. The appellants as such would be entitled for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees 8 one lac fifty thousand) towards compensation on account of death of Baburao. The said amount is excluding the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) awarded to the appellant No.1 towards the injuries sustained. 9. In the result, I modify the order passed by the Tribunal. It is reported that the appellants have already withdrawn the amount as awarded by the Tribunal. Excluding the amount which is already awarded by the Tribunal and withdrawn by the appellants, the appellants will be entitled for further amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% p.a. from the date of appeal i.e. 10.1.1993 till realisation. 10. The First Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/fa21300 9