1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.281 OF 2006 (Sunitabai Reva Gatit vs. Arif Rustum Patel and other -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.P.Brahme, Adv., for the appellant. Mr.R.J.Godbole, Adv., for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Respondent no.4 deleted. Appeal dismissed as against respondent no.5 as per Courts order dt.21.4.2009. Mr. S.J.Sarkate, Adv., h/f Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Adv., for respondent no.6. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:14/1/2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard Shri S.P.Brahme and Mr. R.J.Godbole, Counsel for respective parties. Respondent no.1 is served, however, absent. The appeal is dismissed as against respondent no.5. For the purposes of order to be passed in the present appeal, which is to be decided finally, presence of Counsel for respondent no.1 is not 2 warranted. 2. The award of Rs.45,000/- to the claimant on account of suffering 45 per cent disability is subject of challenge by the claimant terming it to be inadequate. 3. The claimant had, before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claimed Rs. 1,00,000/-. The claimant was 30 years old at the time of accident. The learned Judge though accepted the notional income of the claimant to be Rs.1500/- per month and with the said calculation, however, without assigning any reason, fixed the loss of income on account of injury sustained by the claimant to be 45 per cent and amount of Rs.30,000/-. 4. There is obviously no justification in the learned Judge coming to the conclusion of loss on account of injuries to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. 3 5. The amount below the head mental agony of Rs.3,000/- or pain, suffering at Rs.2,000/- or medical expenses Rs.10,000/- does not require any interference. 6. However, the amount of Rs. 30,000/- having been calculated with a wrong notion, without any application of valid multiplier, as is mandated in terms of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, interference in the order of award is warranted. The notional income of the claimant to be treated as Rs.1500/- p.m. i.e. Rs.18,000/- per annum. By applying multiplier of 15, the loss comes to Rs. 2,70,000/-. 45 per cent of the same would be Rs.1,21,500/-. With above additions, the claim would Rs.1,36,500/-. Appeal allowed to the above extent. No costs. The claimant shall deposit necessary court fee before the learned Judge. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/281-06fa 4