1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1194 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.Y.Patil, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. A.B.Gatne, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 10 th June, 2009 ... 1) Heard both the Counsel extensively. 2) The inadequate compensation of Rs. 43,500/- payable by original opponent nos. 1 to 3 is subject of challenge by the claimant. The learned Judge, while awarding Rs.43,500/- has excluded no fault liability amount of Rs.50,000/- already received by the petitioner as he fixed the liability to Rs.93,500/- as spelt out in paragraph no.20 of the order. 2 3) The Counsel for the appellant/claimant argued that the deceased was 35 years at the material time for which there is no controversy. Learned Judge has not considered the income in proper tune which has resulted in inadequate compensation. 4) I do not subscribe to the views expressed by the learned Counsel, as the learned Judge, while considering payment of compensation and, particularly, considering age of the deceased to be 35 years, has applied multiplier of 16 and dependency is computed at Rs.12,000/- per month. Then, even he has added Rs.2,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- on account of funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, respectively. The total compensationthat could have been worked out is Rs.1,87,000/- and, as learned Judge has observed, the truck owner, driver and the insurance company of the truck bearing No.MH 14/4861 would be responsible to pay Rs.93,500/-, with interest at 9 per cent. Such finding being in tune with the available evidence and the negligence having been 3 established, does not require any interference or any enhancement. The appeal sans merit. It is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/office/ fa1194-04