1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1527 OF 2008 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gajanan Vithoba Mankar & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 03, 2009. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Sanyal, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Azghar Hussain, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri Dhobe, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. Shri Sanyal, learned counsel argues that the accident has not been established and he further contends that age of deceased is found to be 70 years by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. According to him, from that age it cannot be presumed that the deceased was working anywhere or was earning anything. He contends that the claim was of Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month and MACT has accepted it at Rs.70/- per day. He states that in the village the agricultural labour does not get work for all 30 days and hence the monthly income of the deceased as worked out is also 2 incorrect. According to him, therefore, there is no basis for granting compensation and as the earning capacity of the deceased has not been established, the claim petition should have been dismissed. Shri Azghar Hussain, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 contends that at the time of accident also, the deceased was working by road side. He states that though his age was 70 years, it has not been brought on record that he was physically handicapped or unable to work and earn. According to him, the evidence adduced on record has been accepted by the MACT and in such circumstances, as the finding of MACT is not perverse, this Court should not interfere in the matter. He further states that the accident has been proved on record by bringing the documents like FIR and by examining witness. Insofar as the occurrence of accident is concerned, the First Information Report Exh. 19 and Spot Panchnama Exh. 20 clearly show that there was vehicular accident in which the deceased Vithoba was killed on 31.1.2002. However, the appellant – Insurance Company has seriously challenged the quantum of compensation as awarded. The consideration in this respect reveals that the claimants have brought on record oral evidence to 3 show that the deceased was working as agricultural labourer and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The MACT has relied upon said evidence and then found that it can be said that he is earning Rs.80/- per day and then brought it down to Rs.70/- per day. After arriving at his annual income, the MACT has used the multiplier of five. The exercise undertaken by MACT is based upon oral evidence which is available on record. This finding is not, therefore, erroneous or perverse. In the circumstances, it is apparent that challenge to quantum of compensation as granted by MACT is also misconceived. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of MACT. First Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.