1 fa 1448.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1448 OF 2009 1. Ganpati S/o Vithal Awale, Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Nil, R/o Hatani, Tq. Loha, District Nanded. 2. Nagarabai w/o Ganpati Awale, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Hatani, Tq. Loha, District Nanded. .. .. Appellants Versus 1. Kalpana W/o Udhav Awale, Age : 27 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Cidco, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 2. Pulicharla Subbarao Papaiah, Age : Major, Occu. : Business, R/o Hingoli Naka, Nagarjunnagar, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, Guru Complex, G. G. Road, Nanded through its Divisional Manager, Tarasingh Market Nanded. 2 fa 1448.09 4. National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, through its Manager, Tarasing Market, Nanded. .. .. Respondents Shri M. V. Ghadage, Advocate h/f Shri B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Appellants. Shri V. Y. Kakade, Advocate h/f Shri G. R. Ingole (Patil), Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. V. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5. The Respondent No. 4 deleted. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 05TH APRIL, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Admit. 2. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of parties. 3. The present appellants and the respondent No. 1 are the parents and the widow of deceased Udhav, who died in an accident. The present respondent No. 1 filed claim petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 20.12.2008 allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,42,000/-. The present appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were awarded Rs. 3 fa 1448.09 46,000/- each and the rest of the amount was awarded to the present respondent No. 1. The present appellants being aggrieved by the inadequate amount apportioned have filed the present appeal. 4. Shri Ghadage, the learned counsel for appellants contends that the appellants were totally dependent upon the deceased. Even this fact was admitted by the respondent No. 1 in her deposition. The respondent No. 1 can still earn being young and she has also hopes of the marriage. There was no issue from the wedlock. Whereas the appellants would find it difficult as their age is advancing and they may not be in a position to do the physical work. At the time of accident they were totally dependent on the deceased. 5. Per contra Shri Kakade, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the factors and has apportioned the amount in a reasonable manner. Shri Kakade, the learned counsel submits that taking into account the factor of age, so also that the respondent No. 1 has to travel through her long life the amount of compensation has been reasonably awarded and whenever the 4 fa 1448.09 amount has to be apportioned the widow would be getting maximum sum. 6. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company states that, the amount of compensation as awarded against the Insurance Company is proper. 7. A fact which is not disputed between the appellants and the respondent No. 1 is that the appellants and the respondent No. 1 were totally dependent upon the deceased. This fact is categorically admitted by the respondent No. 1 in deposition. 8. No doubt, it is trite law that whenever amount has to be apportioned, the widow would be getting maximum chunk of the amount in as much as she has to travel through her long life. Even when multiplier is adopted the same is inconsonance with the age of the claimant. In view of the same, there would be no dispute that the widow would be getting more amount. At the same time the factor of dependency cannot be ignored. In the present case, it is matter of record that the parents were totally dependent upon the deceased. In such circumstances, the welfare of the appellants also would be required to be considered 5 fa 1448.09 and the amount of Rs. 46,000/- awarded to each of appellant from an amount of Rs. 4,42,000/- would be meager. Taking into account the fact of dependency and the fact that the appellants have no independent source of income, nor there is anything on record to show any immovable property or any such property which would give them a regular source of income, I feel it appropriate to award each appellant an amount of Rs. 92,000/- i. e. both the appellants together would get an amount of Rs. 1,84,000/-. The rest of the amount of Rs. 2,58,000/- would go to the respondent No. 1. 9. In the result I pass following order : i) The order directing the Insurance Company, the owner and the driver of the vehicle i. e. original respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the claim petition an amount of Rs. 4,42,000/- is upheld. ii) The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to Rs. 92,000/- each i. e. Rs. 1,84,000/- in total and the respondent No. 1 the widow of the deceased would be entitled to the remaining amount of Rs. 2,58,000/-. 6 fa 1448.09 iii) Save and except the modification in the apportionment of amount of the appellants and the respondent No. 1, the rest of the award is maintained and upheld. iv) The first appeal is accordingly disposed of, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/April 11