(1) FA. 899.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 OF 2010 National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Hazari Chambers, Station Road, Aurangabad, through its Divisional Manager .. Appellant (Orig.Resp.no.2) VERSUS 1] Kundlik S/o Rajaram Pawar, Age : 64 years, Occu.: Labour, Resident of Varvat, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded; 2] Dhrupadabai w/o Kundlik Pawar, Age : 49 years, Occu.: Household, Resident of as above 3] Satish S/o Vinodrao Govindwar, Age : Major, Occu.: Business, Resident of Viveknagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded .. Respondents (Resp.No.1 and 2 Orig.Petitioners; Resp.no.3-orig. Resp.no.1) Mr. D.V. Soman, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Ganesh M. Jadhav and Ms. Madhubala B. Gangwal, Advocate for respondent no.2 ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 7TH MAY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1] Heard. Admit. Heard finally. The award (2) FA. 899.2010 dated 22.2.2007 recorded by the learned Principal District Judge and Chairman, M.A.C.T., Nanded in M.A.C.P. 834 of 2003 is questioned by the appellant insurance Company on the ground that the award is at excessive side. The accident indeed was not as a result of any fault on the part of the luxury bus but the other vehicles auto rickshaws were involved and it is only fallaciously, the luxury bus is involved in the accident. 2] Mr. Soman would argue, that the income of the deceased assessed by the learned Judge is at excessive padestal, divorced from the fact situation. 3] The learned counsel for the claimant pointed out, not in controversy, the deceased was 24 years, only son of the couple, parents, the father had the fate of his life having expired in October, 2009. It is proved the deceased a iron smith, while engaged in his activities of selling agricultural implements by-side of road was dashed by the luxury, crushing several others. Hence the submission, non involvement of vehicle is straw in the air. 4] Taking survey of above details, I find that the evidence by the mother having indicated earning of the deceased son to be around Rs.100/- per day, even if 1/3rd of the amount for his personal expenses was to be deducted, the amount could not exceed to (3) FA. 899.2010 what the learned Judge has arrived at, computing it only Rs.24,000/-. The learned Judge has treated the yearly dependency of Rs.24,000/-, monthly dependency of Rs.2000/- and the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/-. The learned Judge has also added funeral charges of Rs.2000/-, loss of estate as Rs.5000/-. 5] The shock suffered by the mother due to death of only earning son, in-fact need no match in terms of compensation, however, the stalk reality also cannot be ignored. The learned Judge has considered the yearly dependency of Rs.24,000/- of the parents, however since from October, 2009 the father having expired the dependency would certainly scale down. Without entering into much of the mathematics and arithmetics of the details, I find, the age of the mother being shown as 45 years, which is certainly yawning to details as it does not match in proportion to the age of Pundlik the father of the deceased, the multiplier of 12 applied again is at higher pedestal. 6] In the fact scenario, award of Rs.2,95,000/- granted by the learned Judge is reduced to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs) and since amount of Rs.50,000/- is already received by the claimants, the final award in terms of section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act would be for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh (4) FA. 899.2010 Fifty Thousand). ORDER [I] Appeal is partly allowed. [II] The award of Rs.2,95,000/- is modified to Rs.2,00,000/- inclusive of Rs.50,000/- NFL with interest as awarded by the learned Judge from the date of Petition till recovery. [III] No costs. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) arp