IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1438 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6666 OF 2009. New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...APPELLANT. Versus 1. Kausabai wd/o Sakharam Shinde, and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant Mr. R.R. Imale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No.4 served - absent. ... CORAM: R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED: 13th NOVEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1. Heard Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Imale, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Though respondent no.4 is served, nobody appears for him. By order dated 8th July, 2009, the Court issued notices to the respondents indicating that the matter will be disposed of at the stage of admission. By order dated 15th September, 2009, record and proceedings of the case were called for. 2. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 24th February, 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in MACP No.91 of 2008. The respondents 1 to 3 had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of Ganesh @ Krishnakumar Shinde. By the impugned order, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- from the appellant and respondent no.4 herein jointly and severally together with interest @ 9% per annum. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under: On 14th November, 2007 at about 19.30 hours, Ganesh @ Krishnakumar, since deceased, was traveling by black and yellow colour jeep bearing No.MH-20/AA-4951 from Chikalthana to Karmad. It is the case of the respondents 1 to 3 claimants that the driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. He lost control over the jeep and gave dash to truck bearing No.MH-28/B-8037 which was coming from opposite direction. The deceased was admitted in Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad where he died on 15th November, 2007. The Crime was registered vide No.I-133/2007 u/s 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 of I.P.C. by M.I.D.C. CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad. The jeep was insured with the appellant herein. On these grounds the respondents 1 to 3 claimed compensation from the appellant and fourth respondent herein. The respondents no.1 to 3 asserted that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month as and by way of salary and was maintaining his family. The deceased was 20 years of age at the time of the incident. 4. The owner of the vehicle - respondent No.4 herein filed written statement at Exh.18. He however, denied that he was driving the jeep in rash and negligent manner and that he lost control over the vehicle, which resulted in giving dash to the truck. The appellant filed written statement at Exh.19 and resisted the claim. It was contended that the truck was driven in rash and negligent manner and the said truck gave dash to the jeep. The claimants did not make the truck owner / driver as party to the claim petition. The appellant further submitted that the driver of the jeep was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the incident. 5. In support of the rival claims, the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence before the Tribunal. After considering the material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of jeep bearing No.MH-20/AA-4951 that resulted in death of Ganesh @ Krishnakumar. I have been taken through the oral evidence of the driver of the jeep at Exh.43 as also the statement of one Ram Sahay at Exh.27 to the effect that the offending jeep was driven in rash and negligent manner and the said jeep gave dash to the truck which was coming from opposite direction. The said Ram Sahay was also travelling in the said jeep and was also an eye witness. Upon going through the F.I.R. at Exh.28 as also Spot Panchanama at Exh.29, in my opinion, the tribunal has rightly recorded the finding that the driver of the offending jeep was negligent. 6. In so far as the quantum is concerned, the respondents 1 to 3 asserted that the deceased Ganesh was drawing salary of Rs.4500/- per month. The Tribunal recorded findings that the evidence produced on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 was not reliable. Considering his notional income of Rs.3000/- per month, and after deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal arrived at earning of deceased to be Rs.2000/- per month i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum. 7. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the tribunal committed error in applying the multiplier 16 having regard to the ages of the claimants. The original claimant no.1 is aged about 51 years, original claimant no.2 is aged about 14 years and original claimant no. 3 is aged about 71 years. Considering the ages of the claimants 1 and 3 as also claimant no.2, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the multiplier of 11 should have been applied instead of 16 as applied by the tribunal. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 - original claimants submitted that the deceased was 20 years of age at the time of accident. Claimant No.2 is aged about 14 years and considering this fact, multiplier of 12 should applied. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the interest of justice would be served by applying multiplier 12. It is not disputed that Ganesh died in accident. It is also not disputed that the age of claimant no.2 is 14 years and at the time of accident, Ganesh was aged 20 years. Considering the cumulative effect of all this, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to apply multiplier 12 in the facts of this case. After applying multiplier 12, the total amount comes to Rs.2,88,000/-. 9. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- (inclusive of amount, if any, paid under No fault liability) is substituted by figure of Rs.2,88,000/- and rest of the order is maintained. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited towards statutory deposit be remitted to the Tribunal forthwith. In view of disposal of the appeal, no orders are necessary on the civil application. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) plk/*