1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO 1251/2009 with CA No.5579/2009 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Divisional Office Divisional Manager, Osmanpura, Dist. Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT (Orig.Respondent no.2) VERSUS 1. Gangabai w/o Gyanba Bhusare, Age: 68 years, occu. Household, r/o Turori, Tq.Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Ayub Khan s/o Fakir Khan, Age: Major, Occu: Transport Business, r/o. 5-5-02, Mojam Jahi Market, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Respdt.No.1 is orig. claimant, Respdt. No.2 is orig.respdt. No.1) ... Mr. Shyam Golegaonkar, Adv., h/f Mr. S.V.Kulkarni, Adv., for the appellant. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 12th June, 2009 ... PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for Insurance Company extensively. The matter is heard and decided finally at admission stage. 2 2. The Insurance Company feels aggrieved by the award of Rs.1,80,000/- for death of 25 years boy, contemplating that the multiplier of 15 is excessive, the dependency is not properly considered, that there is breach of terms of Insurance as the driver of the vehicle was without any licence. 3. These contentions, as harpedby the Insurance Company, are difficult to digest. The multiplier of 15 that has been applied by the learned Member was in tune with Schedule II, as indicated under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. That apart, the dependency of deceased mother, the claimant, was considered as she was occillating at the relevant time between 57 to 58 years. The learned Judge has calculated the dependency at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month and the yearly loss as Rs. 12,000/-. This was, indeed, a concession given to the Insurance Company, by arriving at such figure by the learned Member. I do not see that there is any mistake in applying multiplier or that there is excessive dependency by the learned Member. 4. The other contention that there was no licence to the driver, is misplaced as no efforts are made to examine the driver. He did not appear. That apart, none appeared for the Insurance Company. Had it been a case of no 3 licence to the driver, Police could not have been expected to sit with folded hands. As is apparent, the driver has been chargesheeted but for an offence punishable under the Sections of IPC and driver is not chargesheeted or prosecuted for infraction of Motor Vehicles Act. This follows that there was valid licence. Consequently, appeal being sans merit, it is dismissed with Civil Application. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/office/fa1251-09