1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD First Appeal No.492 of 1993 1. Smt. Premlata w/o Samdarsingh age 30 years, occup. Household work. 2. Majnojkumar Samdar Sing, age 10 years, minor, through his guardian mother-appellant No.1. 3. Narendra Singh, age 9 years, through his guardian mother, appellant No.1. 4. Smt. Danabai w/o Bhagirath Singh age 60 years, occup. Household . Respondents work, original applicants Versus 1. Keshav Mahadeo Auti occup. Business, residing Pimple, post Aundh, Taluka Havaeli, District : Pune. 2 2. Kisan Chander Auti, occup.service, residing at Varkhed Mala, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar. 3. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. M.G.Road, Respondents Ahmednagar. Ori.opponents ------- Shri Dhorde, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Anil Joshi, Advocate, for Respondent No.3. CORAM: P.R. Borkar, jJ DATE: 15th June 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT. . This is an appeal by original claimants, being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 9 of 1983, decided on 11.12.1986. 2. Briefly stated, case of the claimants that Samdarsingh, who died in accident, was husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and son of appellant No.4. He was employed as 3 Regiment Police Daffedar (Havaldar) in 46 Armed Regiment. He was a non-commissioned officer. On 12.10.1982 at about 10.00 p.m., he was proceeding on his bicycle towards Railway station by Ahmednagar-Pune road. At that time, truck No.MTD 2494, owned by Respondent No. 1, driven by Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3, came from his behind and attempted to take turn towards left and in the process, gave dash to Samdarsingh, who came under the wheel of the vehicle and was crushed and died on the spot. It is the claim of the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs.850/= per month and was aged 34 years and so, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/= be awarded. 3. Respondent 1 resisted the claim by filing written statement at Exh.22. Respondent No. 2 did not file written statement. Respondent N0.3- insurance company filed written statement at Exh. 14 and stated that its’ liability was limited. Yearly income and age of the deceased were denied by the Respondents. It was also denied that Respondent No.2 was negligent in driving the vehicle. 4. Learned Tribunal, after recording evidence, has come to a conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.2. So, respondents were liable to 4 pay compensation. Respondent No.3-insurance company is held liable to pay compensation limited to Rs.50,000/=, in view of policy produced on record. The tribunal awarded Rs.65,400/= as compensation and interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum thereon. This judgment is challenged by the claimants on the ground that compensation awarded is inadequate. 5. Only point that arises for consideration is, whether the compensation awarded was just and property. My answer to the said point is in the negative for following reasons. 6. In this case, the certificate of salary of deceased is produced on record at Exh.44. His birth certificate issued by the employer is also produced on record at Exh.42. As per this birth certificate, birth date of the deceased is 25.8.1950. Accident took place on 12.10.1982. The deceased was 32 years of age at the time accident. Monthly income of the deceased as per salary certificate at Exh.44, was Rs.678.70 ps. Considering that dependents are the widow, children and the mother, 2/3rd can be considered as dependency and, therefore, monthly dependency would come to Rs.452 and early dependency comes to Rs.5424/=. If we consider 16 as proper multiplier, compensation would come to Rs. 86,784/=. In addition to this, claimants- 5 appellants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/= towards loss of consortium, love and affection and Rs.3,000/= towards funeral expenses. So, total comes to Rs.1,04,784, which I have rounded off to Rs.1,05,000/=. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the liability of insurance company is limited to Rs.50,000/=, which also appears to be so from the copy of policy produced on record. It is also stated at Bar that the entire amount of Rs.50,000/= is paid by Respondent No.3-company. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any appeal challenging the liability of Respondent No. 2- insurance company at Rs.50,000/= as held by the tribunal. So, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay balance amount of Rs. 55,000/= together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application till actual payment on unpaid amount, together with proportionate costs. 8. Appeal is allowed and disposed of, accordingly. (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/oo fa492.93