IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1437 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6665 OF 2009. New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...APPELLANT. Versus 1. Udhav s/o Vishwanath Dakle, and another. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant Mr. R.R. Imale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1. Respondent No.2 served - absent. ... CORAM: R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED: 13th NOVEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1. Heard Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Imale, learned Counsel for respondents 1. Though respondent no.2 is served, nobody appears for him. By order dated 8th July, 2009, the Court issued notices to the respondents indicating that the matter will be disposed of at the stage of admission. By order dated 15th September, 2009, record and proceedings of the case were called for. 2. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 4th April, 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in MACP No.92 of 2008. By this order, the tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the respondent no.1 and held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.82,748/- (inclusive of the amount, if any, paid under no fault liability) from the appellant Insurance Company and respondent No.2 herein – owner of the offending vehicle. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under: On 14th November, 2007 at about 19.30 hours, respondent no.1 was traveling by black yellow colour jeep bearing No. No.MH-20/AA-4951 from Chikalthana to Karmad. It is the case of the respondent no. 1 claimant that the driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. He lost control over the jeep and gave dash to truck bearing No.MH-28/B-8037 which was coming from opposite direction. It is the case of the claimant that he suffered grievous injuries on his right shoulder and fracture of clavicle bone (collar bone deep). After the accident, complaint was lodged with M.I.D.C. CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad vide No.I-133/2007 u/s 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 of I.P.C. The jeep was insured with the appellant herein. The complainant was admitted to M.G.M. Hospital, Aurangabad where he was hospitalized for two days and thereafter he was taken for treatment to Sainath Hospital where he spent Rs.5000/- for plaster of his shoulder and Rs.10,000/- for medicine. It is further case that after the accident, the complainant is unable to work and he has sustained 10% disability due to the injuries. On this basis the claimant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from the appellant herein as also the owner of the vehicle. No written statement was filed on behalf of owner of the jeep. The appellant Insurance Company filed written statement at Exh.21 and raised various defenses inter alia that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep involved in the accident, on the other hand, the truck driver was rash and negligent in driving the truck. The claim was liable to be dismissed as the owner of the truck was not impleaded as party to the claim petition. It was further submitted that the driver of the jeep was not holding valid licence at the time of accident. 4. In support of the rival claims, the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence before the tribunal. The tribunal recorded findings that the driver of the jeep was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner. He lost control over the vehicle and in the process gave dash to the truck coming from opposite direction. I have gone through the findings of the tribunal while disposing of the Claim Petition No. 92 of 2008. In so far as the quantum is concerned, the claimant has led evidence at Exh.29 and he deposed that he was drawing salary of Rs.2679/- per month. The learned tribunal discarded the evidence to that extent on the ground that the claimant has not proved the pay slip. Considering the age of the claimant at the time of accident as 28 years, notional income of Rs.3000/- per month was taken into consideration. The learned tribunal applied multiplier 18 and awarded compensation of Rs.82,748/- (inclusive of the amount, if any, paid under no fault liability). 5. Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of 10% injury recorded by the tribunal is not supported by evidence. In this behalf, he submitted that the claimant has not proved that at the time of accident he suffered 10% disability. Though the disability certificate is produced at Exh.40 and doctor is also examined in order to prove that disability certificate, there is no evidence to substantiate that the working capacity of the claimant is adversely affected on account of this disability. I do not find any merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant. The claimant has sustained injuries and in support of his disability due to the injuries, he has produced certificate at Exh.40 and in order to prove the said certificate, he has also examined Dr. Vaidya at Exh. 37. Perusal of the disability certificate Exh.40 and oral evidence of Dr. Vaidya clearly indicates that the claimant has proved the said certificate. In view of this, I do not find any error committed by the tribunal while deciding the claim petition. 6. In the result, the appeal, being devoid of substance, deserves to be dismissed. Hence, First Appeal No.1437 of 2009 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited towards statutory deposit be remitted to the tribunal forthwith. In view of disposal of the appeal, no orders are necessary on the civil application. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) plk/*