SHEETAL SHARAD PAWAR Vs. BANDAPPA BASAPPA BORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard advocates appearing for the appellants and the second respondent. On the last date, the parties were put to notice that the appeal will be heard finally at the stage of admission. The appellants are the claimants in a Claim Petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The first appellant is the widow of the deceased who is the victim of the accident. The second and third appellants are the minor children of the deceased. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The second respondent is the insurer of the vehicle.

(2.) After a contest, the learned Member of the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent. It was found that the vehicle in question at the relevant time was validly insured with the second respondent. The learned Member of the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.01,77,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(3.) The submission of the advocate for the appellants is that considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 9 adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submitted that the gross salary payable to the deceased was Rs.5,000/- and therefore, the multiplicand ought to have been calculated on the basis of the gross salary. He submitted that future prospects earnings of the deceased have not been considered. He submitted that there was every possibility that the salary of the deceased would have been enhanced in future considering the fact that he was a permanent employee of the City and the Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited.