1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1286 OF 2009 1) Smt.Ashabi Lalmohamad Sayyad and others. - APPELLANTS VERSUS 1) Ramesh s/o Keshav Kurhe and another - RESPONDENTS ***** Mrs.MD Thube-Mhase Advocate for Appellants; Mr.NC Garud, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr.KV Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 4th February, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Admit. Learned Counsel waive service. Perused the record. Heard. 3) The claimants/appellants feel aggrieved by the so-called inadequate grant of compensation of Rs.3,51,200/- recorded by learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangamnar, District Ahmednagar dated 5th December, 2008 and 2 hence the appeal. 4) The learned Counsel, based on spot panchanama and also the Inquest addressed, that the learned Member certainly erred in holding, firstly there was contributory negligence; secondly, deducting 20% on such account. According to her, even if one presumes that the driver of the jeep, the deceased, was in excessive speed, so long as he travels/moves his vehicle in legally permissible manner, negligence ought not to have been attributed to him. 5) It is wrong, the deceased could not be negligent as it is difficult to digest, since record, referred above, rebel against such contention. The impact was so tremendous that the deceased, the driver of the Trax jeep, had suffered severance to his lower limb of the body, which had indeed a very good of length of protection due to bonnet and protective distance. It could not be said that the tempo had given severe forceful dash to the jeep driven by deceased. The location indicated in the spot panchanama may divulge that the deceased could not be on correct side of the road as due to the impact, the position of the vehicle is virtually changed, the tempo has turtled to the left side. 3 6) The learned Member considered the negligence of driver of both vehicles and deducted 20% from the said amount, which he thought was just, though without any assessment. However, considering the ground realities, the learned Member cannot be said to be at fault in making such deduction of 20%, treating it as contributory negligence. The assessment of applying the multiplier as 18, treating the income of the deceased to be annually Rs. 36,000/-, making regular deductions in it and adding to it funeral expenses and other comforts, is in tune with the settled position. No interference in the order under challenge. The First Appeal lacks merit, it is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa1286.09