JUDGMENT 1. The Appeal arises out of the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition no. 224 of 2003 on 07.02.2008, granting compensation of Rs. 13,14,400/- to the claimants along with interest at 9% per annum. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: Anil Furtado, aged about 28 years, died in an accident on 29.05.2003 in which the car owned by the Respondent no. 4 and driven by Respondent no. 3 was involved. Anil Furtado, died on the spot. The Claim Petition is filed by his widow and minor daughter claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The learned Presiding Officer, by the Award dated 07.02.2008, concluded that the claimants had proved that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the car by the Respondent no. 3 and that the death of the deceased was caused by the accident. It is held that the claimants were entitled for Rs. 13,14,400/-. The Appellant has filed this First Appeal challenging the above mentioned Award. By the Order dated 08.07.2010, this Court remanded the matter under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Code to the Tribunal for recording further evidence as stated in paragraph no. 10 of the Order. Pursuant to the remand, the Tribunal has recorded further evidence and has passed the Award dated 03.01.2011. After the Award is passed by the Tribunal on 03.01.2011, this Appeal is placed for final hearing. Though Appellant has not filed any application for amendment to the Appeal Memo and has not raised any challenge to the Award passed by the Tribunal on 03.01.2011, the legality of the Award dated 03.01.2011 is also being considered along with the challenge to the Award passed on 07.02.2008. 3. Shri Pangam, learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Shet, learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 3 and 4, have no objection for considering the legality of the Award dated 03.01.2011 without there being formal challenge to it in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4. Heard Shri Kakodkar, learned Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Pangam, learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Shet, learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 3 and 4. 5. I have seen the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 4. Heard Shri Kakodkar, learned Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Pangam, learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Shet, learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 3 and 4. 5. I have seen the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the following points arise for my consideration: (i) Whether the conclusions regarding contributory negligence and liability of 50 percent of the amount of compensation on the Appellants and the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 is proper? (ii) Whether the impugned Awards are sustainable in law? 6. Shri Kakodkar, learned Advocate for the Appellants, has submitted that the material on the record in the form of the panchanama and the evidence of the Respondent no. 3 to the effect that the impact in the accident was more on the right side, is not considered by the Tribunal and, consequently, it has arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is only 20 percent. According to the learned Advocate for the Appellants, considering the fact that the impact was more on the right side and the fact that the motorcycle was found at a distance of 16.90 metres as shown in the panchanama, the contributory negligence of 20 percent should have been attributed to the Respondent no. 3. The learned Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the claimants have not placed any document on record to prove the salary of the deceased. According to the learned Advocate for the Appellants, the claimants have not even proved that the deceased was employed as a Seaman at the time when the accident has taken place. Shri Kakodkar, learned Advocate has pointed out that the certificate of discharge filed by the claimants along with the affidavit filed on behalf of the claimants, at exhibit no. 27 collectively, show that the deceased had left the place on 12.08.2000. Learned Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has arbitrarily calculated the amount of compensation of Rs.13,14,400/- without there being any justification for the same and similarly, the findings that the negligence attributed to Respondent no. 3 is 80% is without any basis. 7. Shri D. Pangam, learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2, has submitted that the claimants have placed on record the appointment letter at exhibit no. 3 is 80% is without any basis. 7. Shri D. Pangam, learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2, has submitted that the claimants have placed on record the appointment letter at exhibit no. 26, which shows that the deceased held a confirmed position as cleaner. This document further shows that the deceased had to report to the Port of Baltimore on 27.05.2002. Shri Pangam, learned Advocate, has submitted that the evidence of Shri Sydney Fernandes, is given to prove the salary of the deceased. According to the Respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri Sydney Fernandes also worked as a Cleaner on a ship owned by Celebrity Cruises Inc. and the deceased was also employed in the same Company. Shri Sydney Fernandes, has filed a copy of the pay slip in support of his submission that he was being paid 600 US Dollars per month while he worked as a Cleaner on the ship. Learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount of compensation by applying the multiplier of 17 as laid down in the judgment reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr. According to the learned Advocate, the Tribunal has in fact erroneously granted lesser amount by Rs.1,07,000/- which is a bonafide mistake by the Tribunal while making the calculations. The learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the Award passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference. 8. Shri R. Shet, learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 3 and 4, has submitted that the liability cannot be fastened on the Respondent nos. 3 and 4. The Appellants have relied upon the evidence of Shri Joaquim D' Silva, who has stated in his evidence that he was going from Orlim to Chinchinim and was just behind the Maruti Car which was driven by the Respondent no. 3 at the time of the accident. In paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5, Shri Joaquim D' Silva, has stated as follows: “3. I say that ahead of me was a Maruti Car going in the same direction as I was travelling. I say that when the aforementioned Maruti Car reached at II Pavlem, the afore stated Maruti Car suddenly served on the road. 4. In paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5, Shri Joaquim D' Silva, has stated as follows: “3. I say that ahead of me was a Maruti Car going in the same direction as I was travelling. I say that when the aforementioned Maruti Car reached at II Pavlem, the afore stated Maruti Car suddenly served on the road. 4. I say that the aforementioned Maruti went and dashed against the oncoming M. Cycle. I say that after hitting the said M. Cycle the aforementioned Maruti Car did not stop but went ahead. I say that I noted the said number of the Car which was GA-08-H-0567. 5. I say that there after I went to attend the said M. Cycle rider who had severe injuries all over the body and including the head. I say that the said accident was in front of one house and a lady was standing in front of the said House. I say that the people from the said House came out and brought some water and tried to revive the said Motorcyclist who had fallen down.” The Appellant and the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 have not been able to bring anything in the cross examination to disbelieve this witness. Smt. Sharmila Pereira has deposed that she resides in her house which is near the place of said accident. She has stated as follows: “2. I say that when I reached my Parents house, I was opening the gate when one Maruti came from the direction and was proceeding towards Chinchinim, I say that one M. Cycle with Rider came from the opposie direction from Chinchinim towards Deussua. 3. I say that just where I was standing near the house of my Parents the aforementioned Maruti which was fast lost control of the said Car due to the oncoming M.Cycle and dashed against the same. 4. I say that the said M.Cycle was flung and the rider of the same fell on the road. I say that I went immediately towards the fallen M.Cycle rider and the Maruti Car kept proceeding without stopping on the said road. I say that I immediately noted the said Number of the Maruti as being GA-08-H-0567.” The Appellant and the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 have not been able to bring anything in her cross examination so as to create any doubt about the veracity of her evidence. 9. I say that I immediately noted the said Number of the Maruti as being GA-08-H-0567.” The Appellant and the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 have not been able to bring anything in her cross examination so as to create any doubt about the veracity of her evidence. 9. It is clear from the evidence of Shri Joaquim D' Silva and Smt. Sharmila Pereira, that the Maruti Car was driven rashly and negligently and not only this, the Respondent no. 3 did not stop the car after hitting the motorcycle of the deceased. In view of this evidence and nothing contrary having been brought on record by the Appellant and the Respondent nos. 3 and 4, the findings given by the learned Presiding Officer about rash and negligent driving, cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity. The position of the motorcycle in the sketch and the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant that the impact was more on the right side, cannot be a ground for coming to the conclusion that the negligence on the part of the deceased was also substantial and contributory negligence on the part of the deceased ought to have been considered as 80%. The submissions made on behalf of the Appellant in this regard cannot be accepted. 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2, the claimants have produced documentary evidence on record to substantiate that the deceased was employed as a Cleaner with the Celebrity Cruises Incorporated and he held a confirmed position as a Cleaner. The evidence of Shri Sydney Fernandes who was also working as cleaner in the same Company, can be relied for the purposes of calculating the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has calculated the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month for the purpose of quantifying the compensation and it cannot be said to be on higher side. Looking to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 and it is in consonance with the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra). The Tribunal has also deducted one third amount the deceased would have spent on himself if he would have been alive. Looking to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 and it is in consonance with the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra). The Tribunal has also deducted one third amount the deceased would have spent on himself if he would have been alive. It is clear that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant material and all the relevant aspects while passing the Award and while calculating the compensation for which the claimants are entitled. There is no infirmity in the impugned Award as far as granting compensation to the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 is concerned. Learned Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 has rightly pointed out that though the Tribunal has actually concluded that the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for the amount of Rs.16,43,000/-, while calculating the amount it has committed a mistake and wrongly arrived at Rs.13,14,400/-. There is no cross appeal by the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, it will not be appropriate to consider this aspect. 11. In view of the above, the Appeal is dismissed with costs to be paid to the Respondent nos. 1 and 2. 12. The learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties have submitted that the Appellant has deposited the entire amount with the Registry of this Court. The amount deposited with the Registry of this Court along with interest which has accrued on it should be paid to the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 after the period of 90 days from today.