( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 567 OF 1993 1. Madhukar s/o. Shriram Dhawale .. Appellants Age. 32 years, Occ. Agri. & Pvt. Service, R/o. Ashti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. 2. Sudhakar s/o. Shriram Dhawale Age. 29 years, Occ. Agri. & Pvt. Service, R/o. Ashti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. 3. Prabhakar s/o. Shriram Dhawale Age. 25 years, Occ. Agri. & Pvt. Service, R/o. Ashti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. 4. Bhaskar s/o. Shriram Dhawale Age. 22 years, Occ. Agri. & Pvt. Service, R/o. Ashti, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. Versus 1. Nagesh s/o. Vithal Pardeshi .. Respondents Age. 33 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Karmala, Tq. Karmala, Dist. Solapur. 2. The United India Insurance Company, Branch Manager, Beed. 3. Mathurabai w/o. Vithal Pardeshi, Age. Major, Occ. Household, R/o. Karmala, Tal. Karmala, Dist. Solapur. Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri D.V. Soman, Advocate for respondent No.2. ( 2 ) CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 23.06.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the original claimants who were sons of Shriram Dhawale for enhancement of compensation awarded as they were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, in M.A.C. No. 33 of 1987, decided on 11.01.1993. 2. It is no more disputed that the appellants who are major sons of deceased Shriram have made application for compensation. Shriram was Head Master in a School at Hatolan, Tal. Ashti. He was 54 years of age. His monthly salary was Rs. 1515.60. The appellants were residing with their father. They have also agricultural land. Shriram on 27.05.1986 was proceeding from Sangvi to Ashti for private work on a Luna Moped. Truck bearing No. MTO 6906 owned by respondent No.3 and insured with respondent No.2 gave him dash. As a result Shriram died and thereafter the claimants/appellants filed claim petition for getting compensation of Rs. 3,34,851/-. ( 3 ) 3. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,15,642/- inclusive of 'No Fault Liability'. 4. The only point that arises in this appeal is – Whether compensation awarded is just and proper and/or is grossly inadequate? 5. Heard Adv. Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh for the appellants and Adv. Shri D.V. Soman for respondent No.2. No one is present for respondent Nos. 1 & 3. 6. At the age of 54 proper multiplier would be 9. It is argued by Adv. Mrs. Deshmukh that 2/3 amount was spent by deceased Shriram on his family. So dependency would be Rs. 1000/- per month and therefore yearly dependency would be Rs. 12000/-. However, here all the claimants are sons who were major and their ages were given as 32, 29, 25 & 22 in the claim petition. They were either agriculturists and/or in private service. All of them are residing at Ashti. There is no widow or unmarried daughter. So dependency can be ( 4 ) considered as ½, which can be considered as Rs.750/- p.m. So, yearly dependency comes to Rs. 9000/-. Even if we consider multiplier of 9, the compensation would come to Rs. 81,000/-. The claimants would be entitled to Rs. 15000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs.3000/- as funeral charges. Even these are added, the amount does not exceed the amount awarded by the M.A.C.T. 7. In these circumstances, this appeal has no merit. The appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/fa567.93