M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.)AS both the First Appeals are Cross Appeals and as such challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Main) Valsad at Navsari (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') dated 20/07/1994 in M.A.C.P No.260/1987 both these First Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and award.
(2.)FEELING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.260/1987 by which the learned tribunal has restricted the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the original claimant up to Rs.1,50,000/ - only and has awarded to the original claimants the compensation for the death of the deceased father at Rs.5,80,500/ - with 15% interest thereon from the date of the Claim Petition till realization, the appellant herein -original opponent no.2 -owner of the vehicle involved in the accident has preferred First Appeal No.5182/1995.
2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in awarding Rs.7,30,500/ - only towards the compensation for the death of the deceased father, the appellant herein -original claimant has preferred First Appeal No.6462/1995 to enhance the amount of compensation.

(3.)THE facts leading to the present First Appeals in nutshell are as under;
3.1. So far as the present First Appeals are concerned, it is with respect to compensation for the death of the deceased father i.e. with respect to M.A.C.P. No.260/1987. The accident took place between the Ambassador Car, bearing No. MMB 2223, which at the relevant time was driven by the deceased father of the original claimant and the Motor Truck, bearing No.MTT 6661 driven by original opponent no.1, owned by original opponent no.2 and insured by original opponent no.3 - Insurance Company on 06/12/1986 at 8:30 a.m. near Vapi National Highway No.8 and in the said accident, the father, mother, grandfather, grandmother and minor younger brother of the original claimant -minor Kena Pankaj Patel died. The original claimant -minor Kena Pankaj Patel also suffered injuries as a result of the accident. The original claimant -minor Kena Pankaj Patel filed six different Claim Petitions claiming compensation for the death of her father, mother, grandfather, grandmother and minor younger brother as well as claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by her. It was the specific case on behalf of the original claimant that original opponent no.1 -driver of the Motor Truck involved in the accident was sole negligent.

3.2. The original claimant claimed a total sum of Rs.25 lakhs towards compensation for the death of the deceased father. The case on behalf of the original claimant is that her father was Master of the Ship and was performing his duty in high sea who earned 6700 per month in Malaysian dollar, which is equivalent to Indian currency of Rs.34,170/ - per month with all the medical benefits and home town concessions. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimant that every year he used to get increment of 500 Malaysian dollar and, therefore, the original claimant claimed a total sum of Rs.25 lakhs towards compensation under different heads for the death of her father.

The Claim Petition was opposed by original opponent no.2 -owner of the Motor Truck -insurer by filing the written statement at Exh.14. The Claim Petition was also opposed by original opponent no.3 -Insurance Company by filing the written statement at Exh.18. It was the case on behalf of the Insurance Company that the liability of the Insurance Company would be to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/ - only. The learned tribunal framed the issues at Exh.19.

4.1 In order to prove the claim, one Shri R.F. Patel, who was the guardian of claimant and friend of the deceased father and was appointed by the Bombay High Court, was examined at Exh.32. One Shri Chaitanya Dhruv Mehta, Solicitor of Bombay was examined at Exh.64. Smt Laxmiben Parag Patel, who witnessed the accident has been examined at Exh.81 and Shri Praful Ramanbhai serving as Manager in Shipping Corporation of India, Bombay was examined at Exh.95. On behalf of original opponents nos.1 and 2, original opponent no.1 -Driver of the Motor Truck involved in the accident came to be examined at Exh.103. On appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal has held original opponent no.1 -driver of the Motor Truck involved in the accident 50% contributory negligent and the driver of the Ambassador Car -deceased father contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. Considering the Insurance Policy, the learned tribunal has restricted the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/ - only.

4.2 To prove the income and in support of the claim of Rs.25 lakhs, the original claimants relied upon documentary evidence produced at Exh.54. No income tax return or assessment order was produced. On appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.34,170/ - per month, which was equivalent to 6700 Malaysian dollars, thereafter, after deducting the personal expenses towards himself as well as the expenses towards other family members, the learned tribunal has held the loss to the original claimant at Rs.8,000/ - per month i.e. Rs.96,000/ - per annum and, thereafter, applying the multiplier of 15, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.14,40,000/ - under the head of loss of dependency. The learned tribunal has thereafter awarded a further sum of Rs.20,000/ - towards compensation under conventional heads of loss to estate, loss of expectation of life etc. and has further awarded a sum of Rs.1000/ - towards conveyance charges / funeral expenses. Thereafter, deducting 50% towards contributory negligence of the deceased father, the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,30,500/ - with 15% interest thereon from the date of the Claim Petition till realization (restricting the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/ - only).

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.260/1987, both the original opponent no.2 - owner of the Motor Truck involved in the accident as well as the original claimant has preferred the present First Appeals.