JUDGMENT V. M. Deshpande, J. (Oral) - The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pusad dated 08.8.2007 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 86 of 2005. By the impugned judgment, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellants/claimants was partly allowed. The Court below directed the respondents herein to pay jointly and severally compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,82,000/- which is inclusive of No Fault Liability claim. Thus, the Court below directed the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- to the present appellants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. How that compensation should be distributed that apportionment is indicated in the impugned judgment and award. 2. I have heard Shri P.D. Meghe, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri G.G. Mishra, the learned counsel holding for Mrs. I.L. Bodade, the learned counsel for respondent no.2. Though, respondent no.1 is duly served, he chose not to appear before this Court. 3. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under : Vinod Jadhav, on 28.3.2005 at about 20.30 hours, was standing on the road side near S.T. Stand, Umarkhed. At that time, one bus owned by respondent no.2 having registration No. MH31/ AP9415 came out of the bus stand from wrong gate. That time respondent no.1 was on the wheel of the said offending vehicle and he was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. In such process of negligent driving, he knocked down Vinod resulting into death on the spot. The offence was registered against respondent no.1 at Police Station, Umarkhed vide Crime No. 51/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Appellant No.1 is the widow of Vinod. Appellant no. 2, 3 and 5 are the minor daughters and minor son of deceased Vinod and appellant nos. 4 and 6 are the parents of deceased Vinod. 5. A petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation was presented by the appellants before the Claims Tribunal. Said was registered as M.A.C.P. No.86/2005. It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of death, Vinod was 25 years of age and he was doing agricultural work and was in private service. From this, he was earning Rs. 3000/per month. Said was registered as M.A.C.P. No.86/2005. It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of death, Vinod was 25 years of age and he was doing agricultural work and was in private service. From this, he was earning Rs. 3000/per month. On various other heads, the amount was claimed by way of compensation. However, in the claim petition, the appellants restricted their claim to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 6. Though, respondent no.1 was served with the summons of the claim petition, no written statement was field by him. Respondent no.2 filed its written statement (Exh.19) denying all the allegations. On behalf of the claimants, appellant no.1 Sunita, the widow, entered into the witness box and also examined one witness Arjun Jadhav (PW2) as employer of deceased Vinod. Nobody entered into the witness box for and on behalf of respondent no.2. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties before me and after having perused the record of the Court below, following points do arise for my consideration 1. Whether the Court below has granted just compensation in favour of the claimants ? 2. What order ? 8. Before the Claims Tribunal, respondent no.2 raised a plea that the driver of its bus was not negligent and the deceased himself was negligent. Admittedly, the offence was registered against respondent no.1, the driver of the bus, vide Crime No. 51/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code for driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. 9. Be that as it may. The Court below recorded a specific finding that it was the driver of the respondent nos.2''s bus, who was rash and negligent and due to such act, the accident occurred. Though, this finding was recorded against respondent no.2, no appeal is preferred by the respondent no.2 independently or even cross-objection is also not filed in the present appeal filed on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. In that view of the matter, the finding that it was respondent no.1 who was rash and negligent while driving the bus and due to such act, death of Vinod occurred, attained finality. 10. The question now to be determined by this Court is as to whether the Court below has granted adequate and just compensation. 11. In that view of the matter, the finding that it was respondent no.1 who was rash and negligent while driving the bus and due to such act, death of Vinod occurred, attained finality. 10. The question now to be determined by this Court is as to whether the Court below has granted adequate and just compensation. 11. In the claim petition, the appellants/claimants stated that the deceased was working with one ration shop. In order to substantiate said pleading, the claimants also examined PW2 Arjun Kisanrao Jadhav. His evidence would show that the deceased was working in his shop as "Kataman". According to him, he used to pay Rs. 2,100/per month to the deceased. His evidence is disbelieved by the Court below. After perusal of the crossexamination of this witness, in my view, no fault can be attributed to the finding recorded by the Court below in not accepting the evidence of PW2 Arjun. 12. It was also the plea of the claimants in their claim petition that the deceased used to work as a labourer and used to do the agricultural labour work. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently submitted before me that in the cross-examination widow Smt. Sunita has admitted that her husband used to get Rs. 40/- per day as wages to do the agricultural labour work. The learned Court below has also calculated the compensation by reaching to the conclusion that deceased Vinod used to earn Rs. 40/-per day. In my view, the learned Court below has committed an error in calculating and determining the amount of compensation by taking daily wage of the deceased as Rs. 40/-. We cannot forget that Savita is a rustic widow. The record shows that in lieu of examination-in-chief, an affidavit was filed. The said affidavit is at Exh.31. It shows that the affidavit is not signed, but it carries the thumb impression of Savita. That shows that Savita was not only rustic, but an illiterate woman, who was not able to put her signature. It will not be an adventurous statement that many a time, husband does not disclose his correct income to his wife. That aspect will have to be weighed while considering the daily wage of the deceased. In addition to that, I am not ready to accept Rs. It will not be an adventurous statement that many a time, husband does not disclose his correct income to his wife. That aspect will have to be weighed while considering the daily wage of the deceased. In addition to that, I am not ready to accept Rs. 40/as daily wage of the deceased in view of the minimum wages in the State of Maharashtra. During the period of 2006-2007, the minimum wages for agricultural labour in the State of Maharashtra was Rs. 72/. While determining the income, therefore, the minimum wage then prevailing will have to be considered for calculating the compensation. 13. According to the notification, the minimum wage was Rs. 72/- per day. From the evidence of Savita, her husband Vinod used to work, except on Sunday. Therefore, deceased must be earning Rs. 72- per day for 26 days in a month. In the present case, according to the pleadings and evidence, which remained unchallenged, the age of the deceased was 25 years. The learned Judge of the Court below has considered the multiplier 16. In my view, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 , the said is incorrect. In view of the said decision, the multiplier will have to be 18 instead of 16. Further, the impugned judgment does not consider the future prospects. The law in that behalf is now set at rest by the Hon''ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The deceased was selfemployed. Therefore, as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi''s case (supra), 40% allowance will have to be granted in favour of the claimants. Pranay Sethi also lays down that reasonable figures on conventional heads namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-, respectively. Thus, total is Rs. 70,000/-. Since, the Court below has incorrectly calculated the daily wage and has applied wrong multiplier, the appeal will have to be allowed in part. The calculations will be as under : 1. Rs. 72/- per day x 26 days in a month = Rs. 1,872/- 2. Rs. 1,872/- x 12 months = Rs. 22,464/- per annum. 14. 70,000/-. Since, the Court below has incorrectly calculated the daily wage and has applied wrong multiplier, the appeal will have to be allowed in part. The calculations will be as under : 1. Rs. 72/- per day x 26 days in a month = Rs. 1,872/- 2. Rs. 1,872/- x 12 months = Rs. 22,464/- per annum. 14. Admittedly, the appellants who are six in numbers, were the dependents of family of Vinod. In view of Sarla Verma''s case (supra), therefore, %th amount will have to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, from yearly income of Rs. 22,464/-, Vsth share i.e. Rs. 4,492/- will have to be deducted. Thereafter, Rs,17,972/-remained. Since, age of the deceased was 25 years, the multiplier will be 18. Thus, Rs. 17,972/- x 18 = Rs. 3,23,496/- plus 40% on future prospects i.e. Rs. 1,29,398/- plus Rs. 70,000/-. So, total amount comes to Rs. 5,22,894/- . Thus, the claimants will be entitled to receive Rs. 5,22,894/-. 15. At this stage, both the learned counsel submit that an amount of Rs. 2,01,656/- is already deposited by the respondents and withdrawn by the claimants. Therefore, the balance amount i.e. Rs. 3,21,238/- will have to be paid by the respondents. This amount shall be carrying interest @ Rs. 7.5% per annum as granted by the Court below. The interest will be paid from the date of filing of the application till actual realisation. The appellants will be entitled to get the amount of compensation in proportion to the apportionment done by the Court below. There will be no change in the same. 16. The respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 3,21,238/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application within a period of four months from today before this Court. 17. With this, the appeal is allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.