1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 485 OF 1994 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation by its General Manager, Central Office, Bombay (As owner and Insurer) .. Appellant Versus 1. Mohammad Ali S/o Khajanyumutulla Kazi Died his L.Rs. 1A. Taslim Begum W/o Ashfagmiyan Inamdar, Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur. 1B. Khaji Niyamutulla S/o Mohammad Ali Kazi, Age : 36 Years, Occu : Agril., R/o Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur. 1C. Layikha Begum W/o Abdulhai Inamdar, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o as above. 1D. Taiba Begum W/o Babulal Patel, Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur. 1E. Kaosarbegum W/o Saddullah Inamdar, Age : 27 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Padegaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 1F. Shaikh Akhtarbegum W/o Nisar Inamdar, Age : 23 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Ahmednagar. 2. Khursid begum W/o Mohammad Ali Kazi, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur. 3. Azamatulla S/o Mohammad Ali Kazi, Age : 20 Years, Occu. : Student, R/o Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur. 4. Hidaytulla S/o Mohammad Ali Kazi, Age : 18 Years, Occu. : Student, R/o Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur. 5. Amina begum D/o Mohammad Ali Kazi, Age : 16 Years, Occu : Student minor U/g of respondent NO. 2. R/o Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur. 6. Mohan S/o Shivaji Narayankar, Age : Major, Occu. : Driver, R/o Solapur, C/o Depot Manager, MSRTC, Solapur. .. Respondents Shri A. B. Dhongade, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri M. P. Tripathi, Advocate h/f Shri K. J. Khute Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1A to 1F and 2 to 5. The respondent No. 6 served. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 08TH JULY, 2010. 3 ORAL JUDGMENT : . This first appeal is filed by the appellant/original respondent against the judgment and award dated 04.01.1994 in M.A.C.P. No. 54/1990 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Osmanabad, thereby allowing the total claim of the claimants present respondents. The main grievance of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has not applied the proper multiplier and has erred in fixing the quantum of the compensation. 2. This appeal came to be admitted on 03.10.1994. The appeal is fixed today for final hearing. Heard both the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/M.S.R.T.C. disputed the quantum referring to the multiplier with regard to the limited controversy the following points arose for my determination : A. Whether the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is correct ? B. Whether the compensation granted is just and proper ? 4 4. Perused the impugned judgment and award. It is seen that the learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 20. The age of the deceased and his income is not disputed. As such, both the parties agreed that multiplier of 17 would be reasonable and proper. In my opinion also the the multiplier should be 17 in place of 20. The reliance is also placed on the authority reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 Sarla Verma (Smt) and others V Delhi Transport Corporation and another on the point of multiplier and for payment just compensation. I have also heard submissions of Shri M. P. Thripathi, learned counsel for respondents, he conceded to the multiplier of 17 and urged to fix the compensation accordingly. 5. Considering the ratio laid down in the judgment cited supra and after hearing both the parties the amount of Rs. 2,72,000/- is fixed as just and reasonable compensation payable to the claimants/respondents in present appeal. 6. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned award is accordingly modified to the extent of amount of compensation as under. Hence the following order. 5 i) The appeal is partly allowed for payment of Rs. 2,72,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh Seventy Two thousand only) with proportionate cost. The impugned judgment and award of Rs. 3,65,800/- is quashed and set aside. The appellant/MSRTC is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,72,000/- to the claimants along with accrued interest thereon. ii) The claimants/respondents are entitled to the aforesaid amount of compensation in equal share and they are permitted to withdraw the same along with interest accrued thereon out of deposit in Court. iii) The balance amount if any out of amount so deposited by the appellant, shall be returned to the appellant/MSRTC. iv) Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/July 10