1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.604 OF 2009 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., a Subsidiary of the General Insurance Corporation of India and a company incorporated under the Companies Act Having one of its Divisional Office at Adalat Road, Aurangabad Through its Senior Divisional Manager Shri.Vishwas S/o Bansi Gaikwad, Age : 52 years, Occ : Service as Senior Manager, The New India Assurance Co., D.O. No.1, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. Appellant -VERSUS- 1. Parvezkha Lalkha Pathan Age : 22 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Police colony Quarter No.44, Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Yusufkha S/o Usmankha Pathan Age : Major, Occ : Driver, R/o Khandala, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents ------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Ajit Kadethankar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. B. V. Dhage, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr.A.G. Ansari, Advocate for the respondent no.2. ------------------------------------------------------ (CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) DATE : 8th October, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Notice of this appeal was issued to the 2 respondents initially on the application for condonation of delay. In response to the said, the learned Counsel Shri.Dhage appears for the respondent no.1. The delay caused in filing the appeal was condoned and on 24th September, 2009, the parties were put on notice that the matter shall be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri.Kadethankar has submitted that the appellant has deposited the entire amount of award in this court and it is also not disputed that the claimant has withdrawn the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The matter, is therefore being disposed of finally, at the stage of admission. Admit. Heard by consent of parties, finally. 2. This appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 16.01.2008 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-4, Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.879/2006. The award is for total amount of Rs. 3,64,000/- inclusive of no fault liability along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of registration of the claim, till its realisation. The Tribunal has granted compensation for the injuries 3 suffered by the claimant by taking notional income as the basis. The Tribunal has determined the income of Rs.30,000/- per year and by applying multiplicand of 18 has arrived at income of Rs.3,24,000/-. 3. The only challenge to the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is that the Tribunal ought to have adhered to the provisions of second Schedule under section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, which prescribes the total notional income at Rs.15,000/- p.a. According to the learned Counsel, the determination of Rs.30,000/- per year income on notional basis, is contrary to the aforesaid provisions of the Act. Except this, there is no other challenge raised. 4. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant has urged that this provision of Second Schedule was introduced in the year 1994 and the Tribunal is not bound to calculate the notional income, on the basis thereof, after about a period of 14 years. Further the provisions of Second Schedule are by way of guidelines and not mandatory in nature 4 and it would not encroach upon the powers of the Tribunal under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to determine the just amount payable and hence, according to him, the compensation determined by the Tribunal, in accordance with section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is just and proper. 5. After considering the aforesaid contentions of the parties, I am of the view that the provision of Second Schedule would not curtail the power of the Tribunal under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. At any rate, the provision of Second Schedule is by way of guidelines and it is open for the Tribunal to arrive at different conclusion on the basis of the material available on record. The provision of notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.a. introduced in the year 1994, would certainly be inadequate in the year 2006, when the claim petition was filed. The Tribunal has determined the income of Rs.30,000/- per year of the claimant, and after deducting 1/3rd expenses of personal use, applied the multiplicand of 18 to arrive at a figure of total compensation of Rs.3,24,000/-. This, the Tribunal felt it to be just and proper 5 compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 168 of the said Act and which can not be faulted with. 6. So far as the amount of Rs.10,000/- granted towards the medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of attendant and traveling charges, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards future follow up and loss of comfort and the interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. are concerned, there is no challenge to it raised in instant appeal, the same is therefore required to be maintained. 7. In view of above, there is no substance in the present appeal, same is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the amount which is lying in this Court shall immediately be remitted back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Aurangabad and Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders thereto. The claimant has furnished the 6 security for withdrawal of said amount, same shall stand discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.K. DESHPANDE) JUDGE GAS/fa604.09(1)