1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 232 OF 1994 Office notes, office memoranda of Corum, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s Judge’s orders. [ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.] DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009 1. The claimant Madhavrao in M.A.C.P. No. 84 of 1988 decided by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, is in Appeal with his wife. 2. Tukaram, the deceased was an inmate in the bus. Due to the accident, he succumbed to the injuries. The learned Member recorded that the driver of the S.T. Bus did not exercise due safety and branded negligence on him. On assessing the 2 evidence, I find that it was the fault on the part of S.T. Bus driver driving said vehicle without control on staring, making it zig-zag. Then comes the question of claim as accelerated by the appellants. It is a matter of record that widow of deceased namely Smt. Sangita independently prosecuted her claim by filing M.A.C.P. No. 84 of 1988 and the learned Member by common Judgment and Order decided both petitions ( M.A.C.P. No. 61 of 1988 and M.A.C.P. No. 84 of 1988). 3. During the course of submissions, it was canvassed that the deceased was a driver with monthly earning of Rs. 1100/- to Rs. 1200/-. In such exercise, the only support is driving licence possessed by him. The driving licence by itself will not culminate to indicate the vocation of the deceased to be a driver or making earning of Rs. 1100/- to Rs. 1200/- per month. In the scenario of the matter, the learned Member was naturally left with calculating the notional income and the 3 day to day simple permissible habits and food requirements of an individual living in the city. 4. The record illustrate that the appellants have 2 sons . Appellant no. 1was 50 years old at the material time (he is no more ). The Appeal is now prosecuted by wife Shantabai. The learned Member calculated the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- and evaluated the same by apportionment between Madhav, Shantabai and the widow of deceased Smt. Sangita. He has done calculation by awarding Rs. 50/- each to Madhav and Shantabai while Rs. 100/- to Sangita. The multiplier of 10 was applied so far as Madhav and Shantabai are concerned and for Sangita it was 20. The uncertainties in the life were also considered by the learned Member and he made reasonable deduction of Rs. 5,000/- from Sangita’s claim while Rs. 2,000/- from present appellant. 4 5. The calculations arrived at by the learned Member of the M.A.C.T., Latur can not be said to be imaginary and illusions. The impugned Judgment is delivered after consideration of evidence on record. In the situation, the Appeal does not warrant any interference. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ K.U.CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE knp/FA232.94 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13