FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.885 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.T.Ghute, Adv., for the appellant. Mr.R.F.Totala, Adv., for respondent no.2. Mr. V.V.Ingale, Adv., for respondent no.1. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 8 th June, 2009 ... 1. Heard Counsel. By consent, the appeal is finally heard. The Counsel accepts, for such purposes, the record and proceedings need not be called. 2. The appellant feels aggrieved by the award of Rs.53,750/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent on the ground that the claimant or his witnesses did not prove the medical expenses incurred and that the permanent disability is not established, as was required. 3. The accident in question is not in controversy. The claimant was 7 years old at the material time. The medical certificate and the treatment indicate that the claimant had suffered fracture at his right leg and left arm, supported by medical certificate ( Exh.62), including X ray films. 4. The respondent examined himself below Exh.52 and contended that he was driving the motor cycle in moderate speed, however, it was the claimant Saddam dashed and encountered, resulting in accident. 5. The fact remains, there was a fracture to the claimant, which has been established by Dr. Ajay Mainderkar while proving Exh.36 that such disability was 15 per cent. Claimant was hospitalised from 16.5.1999 till 8.6.1999 at Government Hospital. Said medical papers are also produced. The parents were naturally required to attend the claimant at the hospital. It was a hospitalisation for more than a month, they were required to have a special diet for early recovery. The learned Member has considered that the claimant was 7 years old, he could not be an earning member, however, considering the disability of 15 per cent, the requisite multiplier was applied. The learned Member has also found that the respondent Driver of the Motor cycle did not prove that he had a valid licence to ply the motor cycle, though he has attempted to produce the same, below Exh. 56 but it was illegible. Time was granted to respondent no.1 Driver to produce requisite licence, which he did not produce. The petition under Section 140 was left unattended. The observation of the learned Member, while accepting contention of the claimant, to award Rs. 53,750/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent, in the light of the above facts, cannot be said to be erroneous or not flowing in tune with the record. 6. The appeal sans merit, it is dismissed. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant be refunded. (K.U.Chandiwal) Judge. agp/office/fa885-09