1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.262 OF 2006 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Gouevia Chambers, 3rd floor, Panaji-Goa. …. Appellant V/s 1. Shri Mathias Afonso, Resident of Firguem Bhatt, Siridao, Tiswadi-Goa. 2. Mrs. Remediana Rodrigues Afonso, Resident of Firguem Bhatt, Siridao, Tiswadi-Goa. 3. Mr. Moses Anthony D'Silva, Major, resident of H.No.309, New Khuskilwadda, Sawantwadi, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, (owner of the vehicle no.MH-07-3557, Jeep). 4. Shri Ramesh Bhagwan Pandhare, Resident of A/P Nirwade, Taluka Sawantwadi, District, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, (driver of the vehicle No.MH-07-3557). …. Respondents Shri E. Afonso, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri V. Braganza, Advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the 2 appellant, Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri V. Braganza, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.3 & 4. Respondent no.2 though served failed to remain present. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Panaji in Claim Petition No.8/2003 whereby the Claim Petition filed by respondents no.1 & 2 was partly allowed and the compensation was directed to be paid to the respondents no.1 & 2 to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. on a sum of Rs.1,43,000/- (excluding the amount of the future loss of dependency). 3. The Claim Petition was filed by the respondents no.1 & 2 on the ground that their son had expired on account of the motor vehicle accident and, as such, had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.16,50,000/-. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the accident occurred near Military Camp, Bambolim Church on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.4, the driver of the jeep. The Tribunal further held that the deceased Savio Mathew 3 Afonso had expired on account of the said motor accident. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation to respondents no.1 & 2. 4. Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the compensation on the basis that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/- per month. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the claim of respondents no.1 & 2 that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/- per month and, as such, according to the learned Counsel Tribunal ought o have fixed the compensation on the notional income of Rs.3000/- per month. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal has not given any reason while fixing the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month, and further submitted that in view of the judgment reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., the Tribunal wrongly fixed the multiplier as 9 when according to the learned Counsel, the multiplier ought to have been 7 and that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd on account of personal expenses 4 when considering that the deceased was a bachelor the deduction ought to have been 50%. Learned Counsel further points out that in the said judgment of the Apex Court it has been categorically held that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation on account of pain and suffering of the legal representatives of the deceased and, as such, awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- on such count would not arise. The learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified. 5. On the other hand, Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has pointed out that the profit and loss account and the balance sheet produced by the respondent disclose that the monthly income of the deceased was more than Rs.5,000/- . Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has held that the deceased was owning a trawler and, as such, the question of fixing the compensation on the basis of notional income would not arise. Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. (supra), the multiplier applied ought to have been 7 and the deduction on account of personal expenses as held in the 5 said judgment ought to have been 50%. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of the case considering that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record the following points for determination arise in the present appeal: POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified to fix the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/- (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified to fix the compensation on the basis of multiplier of 9 and deduct 1/3rd on account personal expenses and award amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of pain and suffering. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel and on the basis of material on record, the Tribunal was justified to fix the compensation on the basis of the monthly income of Rs.4,500/- as the evidence discloses that the deceased had obtained a degree in Bachelor of Arts and that he had also completed a workshop in 6 Computers from Tulec Computer Education and has also obtained Diploma in Computer Management through Computer Square and had completed second year of LLB. Apart from that the evidence also discloses that the said deceased owned a trawler. Considering this evidence, I find that the contention of Shri Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, that the compensation is to be fixed on the basis of notional income cannot be justified. The Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/-. As such, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment with regard to the monthly income of the deceased. The first point for determination is answered accordingly. 8. With regard to the second point for determination, considering the said judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. (supra), taking into account the age of the dependents namely respondents no.1 & 2 the multiplier to be applied in the present case is 7 which is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Apart from that, considering that the deceased was a bachelor the deduction on account of personal expenses would be 50%. The Tribunal was not justified to deduct 7 1/3rd on account of such personal expenses. Apart from that, in the said judgment of Apex Court it has been held that there is no question of awarding any compensation on account of pain and suffering of the legal representatives of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of pain and suffering of respondents no.1 & 2. To that extent, I find that the impugned judgment and award has to be modified. After making the calculations and deducting the amount towards personal expenses of 50% and applying the multiplier of 7, the compensation payable to the respondents no.1 & 2 works out to Rs.1,99,000/- which is rounded up to Rs.2 lacs. To that extent the impugned judgment deserves to be modified. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 29/05/2006 is modified and the compensation payable to the respondents no.1 & 2 is fixed at the rate of Rs.2 lacs besides interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition up to actual payment. (iii) Any amount paid to the respondents under Section 140 shall stand adjusted. 8 (iv) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-