1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.340 OF 1994 Date of decision: 23/4/2010 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/ may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? /No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see /No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? /No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/340-94fa 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.340 OF 1994 1. Keshavrao s/o Shankarrao Dhage, since died, through L.Rs. 1-a) Baburao s/o Keshavrao Dhage, age 38 years, occu.Labour, r/o Shendra, Taluka Parbhani, District Parbhani. 1-b) Dnyanoba s/o Keshavrao Dhage, age 33 years, occu.labour, r/o Shendra, Taluka Parbhani, District Parbhani. ...APPELLANTS (Add.Lrs.1-a to 1-b) (Amendment made of L.Rs. 1-a to 1-b As per C.A.No.4450/2008 granted by this Court dated 16.6.2008) VERSUS 1. Abdul Wajid s/o Gulam Mohamad Sarvari, Age 30, Occupation driver, r/o. Gadiwan Mohalla, Gevrai, Parbhani. 2. Shamsoddin s/o Mohd.Molana, age 26 years, occu.business, r/o Jijamata road, T.K.Hotel, Parbhani. 3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Station Road, Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS Orig.Respondents. ... 3 Mr. M.M.Patil, Beedkar, Adv., for the appellant. Mr.S.D.Hivarekar, Adv., for respondent no.1. Mr.A.S.Osmanpurkar, Adv., h/f Mr. V.D.Kulkarni, Adv., for respondent no.2. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 served. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 23.4.2010 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. M.M.Patil, Mr.V.D.Kulkarni, and Mr. S.D.Hivarekar, Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The appeal was admitted on 19.7.1994. Deceased Sopan, 28 years old, owing to the accident, while plying his Luna, having come in contact with a speeding offending truck, lost his life on 5th Jan.,1989. The bereaved father and other family members approached the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( MACT No. 27/1992) seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The learned Judge, on assessing the evidence, awarded Rs.46,000/- and deducted Rs.25,000/-, the amount under No Fault Liability. The final award was for Rs.21,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application. The claimants have in the First Appeal questioned the finding as to computation of income of deceased Sopan. It was canvassed, 4 the family of the deceased had 25 acres of agricultural property from which 10 acres was irrigated and, apart from carrying on the work of repairing Luna, deceased was also looking after the agricultural property. It is in the evidence of his father Keshavrao that the deceased Sopan had a monthly earning of Rs.200/- to Rs.400/- from his vocation as a Mechanic. The learned Judge could not accept that the family held agricultural property for want of any document. Mr.Patil, Counsel, during the course of submission, accepts that documents are not tendered. 3. Keshavrao, in his evidence, has stated that Sopan was giving Rs.200/- to Rs.400/- for maintenance of the family. 4. The learned Judge, considering the age of the parent to be 60 years and, age of the deceased to be 28 years, applied multiplier of 10 years which, indeed, in the fact situation, was on higher pedestal, however, I shall not touch to this aspect. The learned Judge, considering the evidence of Keshavrao naturally drew a mean from Rs.200/- to Rs.400/- and calculated it at Rs. 300/- per month and reached to the conclusion of 10 years income as Rs.36,000/-. The learned Judge has also allowed claim of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and injury and loss of love and 5 affection. The learned Judge, in the fact situation, reached to the finding of entitlement at Rs.46,000/- and naturally, deducted Rs. 25,000/- received under No Fault liability and the awarded Rs.21,000/-. 5. Having gone through the evidence, coupled with the observation of the learned Judge, I do not see any illegality or perverseness in the order of the learned Judge requiring any interference, to enhance the claim. It was the evidence led by the claimants which, indeed, restricted the compensation. First Appeal lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/340-94fa