Anup Rajendra Singh Khamkar and ors. Vs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- bombay stamp act, 1958. schedule 1, article 36: [y.r. meena, cj & d.a. mehta & a.s. dave, jj] deed of mortgage liability to pay stamp duty held, any instruments in respect of transactions, relating to loans and advances, loans and mortgages, cash credit or overdraft bonds, agreements of pawn or pledge and letters of hypothecation executed by farmers for agricultural and land development purposes in favour of all commercial bank etc. are entitled to remission of entire duty chargeable under the stamp act with effect on and from 1.4.1979 under government notification dated 23.3.1979. thus, where loan was granted by bank of india under agricultural finance scheme towards purchase of air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories. use of the air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories in case of applicant who is a farmer can only be for purpose of drilling a bore-well for purpose of irrigation in process of carrying on agricultural activities. thus, it is apparent that loan was availed of by applicant-farmer for agricultural and land development purposes because a bore-well would go to increase the utility of agricultural land by ensuring round the year irrigation. the instrument in question would therefore fall within scope of complete remission granted to instrument of mortgage under government notification dated 23.3.1979 and hence not liable to stamp duty under article 36 of schedule i of the act. d.g. deshpande, j.1. heard advocates compensation from rs. 1,80,000 that was for the appellants and the respondent. this awarded by the tribunal. the claimants appeal is filed by the appellants who are lost their father. the mother had already the original claimants for enhancement of predeceased the father. claimant no. 1 was 18 years old. he was the son and the two claimants were minor daughters aged about 13 years and 10 years respectively at the time of application. salary of deceased was rs. 3,000 per month. tribunal accepted rs. 2,000 per month as dependency, but adopted multiplier of 7 only. it is this part of the order which is challenged in the present appeal.2. learned counsel for the respondent strenuously urged that multiplier has been properly adopted by the tribunal looking to the age of the deceased father as 40 years. he, therefore, contended that no interference is required for.3. i do not find any substance in this submission. the children/claimants were aged about 18, 13 and 10 years respectively on the date of the application and, the deceased father's age was 40 years and the claimant nos. 2 and 3 were minors and unmarried and, though the dependency factor was properly taken at rs. 2,000. but the application of multiplier of 7 was improper. in the circumstances and looking to the age of victim multiplier of 15 would have been proper. therefore, the amount of compensation comes to rs. 3,60,000, i.e., rs. 2,000 x 12 x 15 = rs. 3,60,000. in the original claim petition the claimants have claimed rs. 3,00,000 and they do not want any more amount. tribunal awarded rs. 1,80,000. therefore, appeal is required to be allowed partly. the claimants will be entitled for rs. 3,00,000, i.e., by addition of rs. 1,20,000 with interest thereupon. hence the order:the appeal is partly allowed. respondent to pay rs. 1,20,000 more to the claimants with interest thereupon at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of the application till payment.no order as to costs.