Judgment Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15.12.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, awarding compensation in the sum of Rs.19,25,000/-including no fault liability with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition i.e. 7.9.2001, the present appeal was filed by the appellant / insurance company. 2. In support of the appeal Mr. Pophaly, learned counsel for the appellant vehementally argued that the deceased Deepak was travelling in a government jeep of Irrigation Department and the driver of the jeep was rash and negligent and that is why the accident took place. He further argued that the tribunal should not have therefore, saddled the entire liability on the insurance company of the trailer, but ought to have also held government responsible which was involved. 3. On the question of award of amount of compensation he argued that the tribunal applied a wrong multiplier of 15 without considering the fact that the deceased was receiving pretty higher salary and therefore the multiplier should have been reduced to 12. He then argued that the tribunal has for no reasons added an extra amount of rupees Rs.3,67,230/-. He relied on the following decisions: 1) 2006 AIR SCW 6139 (New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs. Satender & others 2) ACJ 2005(Voll III) 1441 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya and others) He then argued that the tribunal for no reasons awarded Rs.3,67,230/-in addition to the figure of compensation of Rs.15,57,770/-that was arrived at by way of dependency for the claimant on the ground that the said amount was towards future prospects of the deceased earning more and more. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that the tribunal erred in holding that the deceased would have served for another 17 years ignoring the observations in paragraph 24 in the case of Sarla Varma where the Apex Court has negatived the contention holding that there are too many imponderables in life and therefore straightway one should not come to conclusion that the deceased would have survived for another period of 17 years. He then argued that the amount of dependency arrived at by the Tribunal at Rs.15,57,770/-could not have been increased by the tribunal and prayed for allowing appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award. 4. Per contra, Mr. He then argued that the amount of dependency arrived at by the Tribunal at Rs.15,57,770/-could not have been increased by the tribunal and prayed for allowing appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award. 4. Per contra, Mr. Kothale, learned counsel for the claimants opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment of the tribunal. He relied on the following judgments: 1) 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. (Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation) 2) 2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 610 Samina w/o Hafizuddin Siddiqui and others vs. Sk. Saleem s/o Sk. Mehboob and others) He argued that in so far as the fact of accident is concerned, the case is a clear-cut case and the finding recorded by the tribunal is clear that the driver of trailer was totally negligent and straightly collided with jeep head on in which deceased was sitting, while overtaking. The said finding is just according to evidence on record, first information report and spot panchnama and therefore, the driver of the trailer was rightly held to be rash and negligent. He then argued that the deceased was a Sectional Engineer and was working in Irrigation Department of the Government and had good prospects in the employment with future increase in income. His age was 41 years at the time of death by accident therefore, the tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15. The tribunal has rightly taken dependency amount at Rs.1,03,851/-annually supporting finding to arrive at the total amount of Rs.15,57,770/-. He then argued that the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma held that applying the thumb rule, the addition of 30% in his annual salary was required to be made, but the Tribunal has not done it and that deduction ought to have been made at 1/4 rather than 1/3 of the salary for personal expenses in view of the number of dependents left by him. He thus argued that in any case the judgment and award can be upheld in the said sum as awarded by the tribunal. The prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. He thus argued that in any case the judgment and award can be upheld in the said sum as awarded by the tribunal. The prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Following points for determination arise for my consideration: 1) Whether the tribunal committed an error in holding that the driver of the trailer was rash and negligent in driving and therefore the insurance company of the trailer was responsible in indemnifying? ...Yes 2) Whether the tribunal committed an error in calculating the dependency looking to the salary of the deceased who was working as a Sectional Engineer? ...No 3) Whether the tribunal committed error in applying multiplier of 15 in view of the higher salary that was earned by the deceased by bringing down the same to 12? ...No 4) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in awarding extra amount towards future prospects in the sum of Rs.3,67,230/-and if so, whether ultimately award can still be justified in effect? ..Yes 5) What order? Appeal is dismissed. 6. Point No.1:The tribunal has framed issue no.1 and answered same holding that the driver of the trailer was responsible since he was rash and negligent in driving trailer. This finding is based on evidence on record, first information report and spot panchnama. I therefore hold that the driver of the trailer was responsible for the accident. 7. Point no.2:It has been established by the production of Exhibit 66 -school leaving certificate that deceased was aged about 41 years, looking to his date of birth 27.6.1960 and on the date of accident was thus of 41 years & plus 8 months of age. Last Pay Certificate at Exhibit 59, so also certificate at Exhibit 69 show that there was deduction of housing loan from salary of deceased. The tribunal took the gross salary at Rs.13,875/-and deducted the income tax, professional tax, there from and came to the conclusion that the net salary was Rs.13,525/-per month. The said finding is correct. Tribunal thereafter calculated dependency at Rs.1,03,851/-being 2/3rd of annual salary which he would have contributed to the family or dependents. It applied multiplier of 15 and thus arrived at compensation of Rs.15,57,770/-. The contention raised by Mr. The said finding is correct. Tribunal thereafter calculated dependency at Rs.1,03,851/-being 2/3rd of annual salary which he would have contributed to the family or dependents. It applied multiplier of 15 and thus arrived at compensation of Rs.15,57,770/-. The contention raised by Mr. Pophlay that the salary of deceased was more and multiplier in terms of judgment of Sarla Verma should have been reduced, does not appeal to me. His salary was rupees thirteen thousand and odd, and cannot be said to be on higher side looking to the status of the person who died and the work he was performing. He was holding Diploma in Engineering and was working in the government's Irrigation Department. Therefore there was no reason for the tribunal to reduce the multiplier from 15 to 12, as contended. The dependency calculated by the Tribunal at Rs.1,03,851/-is also correct and no fault can be found out with the same since the deceased left five persons in the family after him. I therefore, hold that the adoption of multiplier and the calculation of dependency is legal, correct and proper. 8. As regards addition of rupees three lacs plus by the tribunal on the ground that there would have been future prospects I find, in the light of the observations in paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's case, that there being too many imponderables in life, benefit of revised pay scale or higher salary as an additional factor may not have been available since he might have died on account of ill-health or other accident and further there are several factors in the life which curtail the life. However, looking to the ratio of decision in the case of Sarla Verma and looking to the age of deceased being 41 years, addition of 30% would have been reasonable. If 30% is added the amount of compensation again goes up by about Rs.5,25,770/-. Though I do not agree with the Tribunal which awarded extra amount towards future prospects in effect I find that by addition of 20 to 30 per cent as aforesaid the result achieved is same as awarded by the Tribunal. The submission by Mr. Kothale that the tribunal should have not deducted 1/3rd amount on the basis of paragraph 14 of Sarla Verma's judgment cannot be accepted. There is no cross-objection filed by Mr. Kothale challenging the finding about the deduction by 1/3. The submission by Mr. Kothale that the tribunal should have not deducted 1/3rd amount on the basis of paragraph 14 of Sarla Verma's judgment cannot be accepted. There is no cross-objection filed by Mr. Kothale challenging the finding about the deduction by 1/3. That apart, the fact that the accident took place in the year 2001 and the appeal is pending in this court since 2007, and further when the claimants have received more than Rs.8,00,000/-would sufficiently take care of the family. The net result of the above discussion is that the ultimate award of Rs.19,25,000/-can be upheld though for some other reasons as aforesaid. Hence, I answer point no.3 in negative and point no.4 in affirmative. 9. The up-shot of the above discussion is that the figure arrived at by the tribunal for determining amount of compensation of Rs. 19,25,000/-seems to be legal, correct and proper. In that view of the matter I make the following order: ORDER 1) First Appeal No.505/2007 is dismissed. 2) No order as to costs.