1 fa685-01 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 685 OF 2001 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3321 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant V/s. Smt. Bhagyalaxmi Sunil Kalkari & Ors. .. Respondents. ..... Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the appellant – State. Mr. Sanjay D. Thokade for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : JULY 6, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard the learned AGP appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The first to third respondents are the claimants in a claim petition filed under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to “the said Act”). The name of the deceased is Sunil. The first respondent is the widow, the second respondent is the minor son of the deceased and the third respondent is the mother of the deceased. The age of the deceased as reflected from his school leaving certificate was 23 years and four months on the date of accident. 2 fa685-01 3. On 7th July, 1987, at about 9.00 to 9.30 p.m., the deceased was standing near Kumbhar Ves Bus Stop at Solapur. It is alleged that at that time there were no lights on the street. A bus owned by the Solapur Municipal Corporation (4th respondents herein) which was driven by the fifth respondent stopped at the Kumbhar Ves Bus Stop. The fifth respondent who was the driver of the bus without looking ahead and back and without confirming whether all the passengers boarded or alighted from the bus, started the bus. The left front side of the bus dashed against the deceased. He sustained serious injuries. On the next day, he succumbed to the injuries. The case made out by the first to third respondents was that the deceased was serving as a mason and he was earning Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,200/- per month. The claim was contested by the fourth and fifth respondents by filing written statement. The appellant is the insurer of the bus. The appellant also filed written statement. The Tribunal held that the driver of the bus was negligent and, therefore, proceeded to grant total compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence on the point of negligence. He submitted that there was no evidence adduced on the income of the deceased. He submitted that compensation granted is excessive. 3 fa685-01 5. At the outset, it must be borne in mind that the appellant is the insurer of the bus involved in the accident. However, without going into the issue of maintainability of the Appeal, I proceed to decide the Appeal on merits. 6. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has considered evidence of the driver of the bus. On this aspect, it is necessary to consider the finding recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held thus: “Hence as per the pleadings of the petitioners, the bus had a halt at Kumbhar Vas bus stop whereas the suggestion is given in the corss-examination to the driver of the bus Shivaji Hampe (RW 1) that the bus arrived at Kumbhar Vas but did not stop at the bus stop and straightway started proceeding ahead which is denied by Shivaji Hampe. Now neither the respondent Nos.1 and 2 nor Shivaji in his evidence disclosed that the bus stopped at Balives stop and the passengers were to get down from the bus and some passengers were waiting at the bus stop to board the bus. The driver, therefore, without stopping the bus, started proceeding ahead and while taking the bus to the left side, the backside portion of the bus dashed against the deceased.” 7. Apart from this, the Tribunal has considered the spot panchanama which was duly proved in evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the finding on the issue of negligence. 8. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 23 years. 4 fa685-01 The accident is of the year 1987. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the monthly income of Rs.900/- and 1/3 deduction has been made on account of personal expenses of the deceased. The multiplier of 16 has been applied. Considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier could have been 18. A sum of Rs.7,500/- has been granted on account of loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.7,500/- for loss of love and affection. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.1,30,200/- has been granted which is reasonable and no interference is called for. 9. Hence, Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. If the sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this Court is pending, the same shall be transferred to the Tribunal alongwith accrued interest thereon. 11. The Tribunal will pass appropriate order regarding disbursement/withdrawal of the said amount. 12. Civil Application No.3321 of 1996 stands rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)