1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.204 OF 2006. (Karbhari Patil Vs. N. Kaktivel Natarajan and Anr.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 12th January, 2010. ... 1) Heard Mr.Patil and Mr. Gatne for the respective parties. 2) In an unfortunate accident, the claimant/appellant, while plying his motor cycle has come in contact with a speeding truck, resultantly suffered heavily, his right leg was amputed, his right hand suffered fracture. He was hospitalized for number of days. The appellant claims that he is an agriculturist. Apart from that, he was carrying milk vending activities, and particularly carrying milk-can for such purposes on his motor-bike. It was canvassed all his agricultural activities and also milk vending business has come to stand still due to permanent physical disability. 3) The learned Judge accepted the contention about the accident, however, observed that the negligence should be 2 attributable to the appellant/claimant is at 20%. I do not see any error in this observation. Then comes about the notional income as treated by the learned Judge to be Rs. 15,000/- per year. Though the claimant/appellant is an agriculturist, 7/12 extract was produced before the learned Judge, still the fact remains that on oath the claimant has stated of carrying milk vending business, the observation of the learned Judge of finding a right side storage container to the motor-cycle by itself will not dilute the contention of carrying milk cans, is difficult to digest. It is individual’s skill, he or one plies a vehicle. The learned Judge should have treated the annual income to Rs. 24,000/- instead of Rs. 15,000/- as I am conscious the agricultural fields are to be managed, which the appellant/claimant could well get managed through employees by keeping his supervision. The multiplier of 13 is correctly applied. The age of the claimant/appellant is 45. Hence, order. 4) The appeal is partly allowed. The original respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 2,11,230/- (Two lakhs eleven thousand, two hundred and thirty) with interest @ 7% p.a. from 8th February, 2002 till 3 realization of the amount. This amount is inclusive of the medical expenses, for future medical expenses and also pains and sufferings. The NFL amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be deducted from the above amount. The appeal is partly allowed in above terms. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa204.06