1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 200 of 2009 with CA No.760/2009 --------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, Adv., for the appellant. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 13th July, 2009 ... P.C.:- 1. The award of Rs.2,59,500/- in MACP No.79/2004, dt.21.2.2008 is subject to challenge at the behest of the aggrieved appellant. Considering the nature of submissions advanced, reading the judgment under challenge, the matter can be disposed of at admission stage, without calling for the record and proceedings. I do not wish to call the respondents in the matter for the orders to be passed in the present proceedings. 2. The factual aspects in the matter is deceased Shaikh Shadulla, is said to be 35 years at the time of accident, supported by the entries in the FIR and post mortem notes, without affording any birth record. I do not agree with the Counsel for the appellant that post 2 mortem notes or the FIR by itself should not have been a counting for the age proof. This is not contemplated in proceeding under Section 166 of M.V.Act. 3. The learned Judge, while evaluating the evidence has said in paragraph 9, inadvertently said that the notional income of the deceased is to be treated as Rs.24,000/- per month. However, in the further part of the order, it is apparent, he has corrected it, while making the calculations, applying the same to be annually. The typographical mistake ( typed “per month”) will not explore to accept it as non application of mind as was canvassed by the Counsel. The other aspect in the matter is about the learned Judge treating the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.24,000/- and deducting one third for personal expenses, then treating the annual income to be Rs.16,000/- and applying multiplier of 17. 4. The application of multiplier is in tune with Schedule II of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act. The application of notional income is also in the line of the settled position, as the view in these daysm is the daily wager gets earning of Rs.100/- a day and it has its impact while calculating the annual earning. The learned Judge has treated the same as annually Rs.24,000/- and carried the deductions and 3 reached the conclusion. The award of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.2500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, is also rediating correct position. Consequently, I do not see that there is any error on the part of the learned Judge in entertaining the award and fixing the liability against the appellant. Appeal sans merit. No costs. C.A. Dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/fa200-09