1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.4340/2008. (Trishalabai Rubade and Anr. Vs. Suresh Bhiwaji Pandhare and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Aashish Jadhavar, Adv. h/for Mr. NP Patil, Adv. for appellant; Mr.AB Kadethankar, Adv. for Resp.No.5. ________ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23 rd March, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) The appellants/original claimants feel aggrieved by the Award in MACP No. 23/2006 dated 12.4.2007 to be inadequate, as an amount of Rs. 3,37,000 /- is awarded against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3) Before the learned Judge, there was evidence about the death of Atmaram on 28.4.2006, having suffered in an accident in collision between ST bus No.MH-12 CH 8906 and jeep No.MH-12-CH 4658. The evidence of ST driver, referred by the learned Judge in paragraph 9, illustrate that the bus was in excessive speed, there was no proper and safe distance maintained by the ST driver at the material time. Atmaram, 2 the deceased, was the driver on the vehicle alleged to be drawing salary of Rs.4,000/- and diet charges at Rs.50/-. The claimants assert, the income of the deceased was Rs.5,500/- per month. The learned Judge found, no documentary evidence to support the contention of the claimants as regards Atmaram drawing either salary of Rs.4,000/- or getting diet charges at Rs.50/- per day are forthcoming and established. The salary certificate (Exhibit-50) was definitely after the accident and consequently, the learned Judge was justified in observing, the owner of the vehicle could fill in any figure of his choice, to provide a ladder to the claim of the bereaved family. 4) The learned Judge, on notional calculation, treated the income of Atmaram to be Rs.2700/- and after deducting 1/3rd , held that it was Rs. 1800. Consequently, the annual loss is Rs.21,600/-. The learned Judge considered that deceased Atmaram was born on 8.5.1980 and was 26 years old and found eligible to apply multiplier of 15. In fact, age of the parents indicated by the learned Judge, display them to be 55 or more than 55 years, still the learned Judge felt it proper to apply multiplier as stated above. In 3 the set of above facts, I do not see any error on the part of the learned Judge in fixing the award for Rs.3,37,000/- and the liability to the respective respondents. No interference, First Appeal dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa4340.08