IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.211 of 1995. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, .. Appellants (Org. Respondent) V/s. Smt. Meena Mohan Mukane & Ors. .. Respondents (Org. Claimants) Mr. G.S. Hegde with C.M. Lokesh, for the Appellant. Mr. S.S. Joshi, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008. JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The appellant the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has taken an exception to judgment and award dated 25th November 1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in a claim filed by the respondents. 2. According to the case of the respondents, on 27th January 1987 at 4.45 p.m. the deceased Mohan Baburao Mukane was returning home by his motor-cycle. The accident took place on Jawhar-Wada Road. A bus owned by : 2 : the appellant came from Jawhar side. The said bus was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner which gave a dash to the motor cycle of the deceased from the rear side. As a result, the deceased Mohan Baburao Mukane sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to the injuries while he was being taken to the hospital. The case of the respondents is that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus of the appellant. 3. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus. The Tribunal found that the income of the deceased was Rs.1,300/- per month. By taking monthly dependency at Rs.830/-, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 20 and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,31,000/- 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that evidence on record shows that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. He invited my attention to the evidence of the witnesses examined by the parties and especially the evidence of the bus conductor and driver. He submitted that the evidence on record shows that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. He submitted that considering the fact that the age of the deceased was 35 years, the multiplier of 20 adopted by the Tribunal is certainly on the higher side and the same is contrary to well established position of law. He submitted that the compensation awarded was exhorbitant. The : 3 : learned counsel appearing for the original claimants supported the impugned judgment and award by pointing out that the evidence on record established clear negligence of the driver of the bus. He submits that the multiplier adopted by the tribunal was reasonable and no interference is called for. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The claimants examined the widow of the deceased, as well as a witness Arun Dattatrays Acholkar. The said witness is an eye witness to the accident, who was plying his bicycle behind the motor cycle of the deceased. He deposed in the evidence that the S.T. Bus came at an excessive speed and gave a dash to the deceased. One Yasin Mohamad Chabukswar, the bus conductor on duty also gave his own version of the accident. The driver of the Bus also entered the witness box. According to the driver, he was proceeding with a moderate speed of 40 km. per hour. He stated that initially he noticed that a person was standing with his motor cycle on the road. After his bus passed the said motor cycle, the motor cyclist came from behind and while overtaking the bus gave a dash to the right rear wheel of the bus. 6. After considering the oral evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the learned Member of the Tribunal disbelieved the version of the driver of the bus. The driver admitted in his cross examination that he could not notice the dash. The learned Member of the Tribunal, therefore, observed that if he had not : 4 : noticed the dash given by the motor cyclist, obviously there was no question of the driver applying brakes. The tribunal found the denial of the driver that the wheel of the Bus ran over the body of the deceased as untrustworthy. In view of what was recorded in the “spot Punchanama” and “inquest Punchanama” he found that the bus appears to have ran over the motor cyclist after the impact. The learned Member also noticed that the front wheel of the motor cycle was not damaged and infact the rare portion of the motor cycle damaged. Therefore, the learned member of the tribunal accepted the case made out by the witness Arun Dattatraya Acholkar examined by the respondents that the Bus gave a dash to the motor cycle which was ahead of the bus and discarded the version of the driver and the conductor. The conclusions of the learned member are consistent with the evidence on record. I find no error in the finding of the learned member on the issue of the negligence. 7. The age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of accident. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation V/s. Krishna Balan and Ors. (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 249. The multiplier of 20 applied in the present case was sought to be justified on the basis of the said judgment. Perusal of the said judgment shows that the same supports the case made out by the appellant. In case of a deceased whose age was 36 years, the Apex Court had applied multiplier of 12. Therefore : 5 : the multiplier of 20 applied by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied by the Tribunal. 8. Considering the monthly dependency of Rs.850/- and applying multiplier of 13, the compensation amount comes to Rs.1,32,600/-. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.27,000/- on other counts. Thus the total compensation payable is Rs.1,59,600/- instead of Rs.2,31,000/-. Considering the fact that the accident has taken place in the year 1987, rate of interest of 12% per annum is fully justified. 9. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned judgment and award dated 25the November 1994 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount payable will be Rs.1,59,600/- instead of Rs.2,31,000/-. The rest of the award, as regards interest and costs is maintained. (ii)Appeal is accordingly partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (iii)If any amount deposited by the appellant is pending in this Court the same shall be transferred to the concerned tribunal. The concerned tribunal after hearing the parties will pass appropriate order permitting withdrawal/disbursement of the amount in terms of the modified award. (A.S. OKA, J.)