1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1047 OF 2009 Office notes, office memoranda of Corum, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s Judge’s orders. [ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.] DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009 1. Heard the counsel extensively. Perused the record. The matter is finally heard at admission stage. 2. In an unfortunate accident, wherein the deceased aged 42 years, a Cashier in M.S.R.T.C. drawing salary of Rs. 10,952/- per month, lost his precious life, by amputation of his neck bone and separation of neck region with several other bodily 2 injuries with rapture of his abdomen. The gravity of the accident is highlighted in the panchanama. The F.I.R. demonstrates that the driver of the Jeep before the accident with occupants, had the luxury of consuming and drove the vehicleunder influence, smashed against the speeding bus from its right direction. As indicated above, apart from the death of Anandrao, there were several other casualties and serious injuries. 3. The controversy raised by the appellant is, the driver of the bus was in a moderate speed at the material time. The offending Sumo driver was under influence and consequently caused the accident. The responsibility to share the negligence of 50 % saddled by the learned Member, is erroneous. 4. The F.I.R. indeed indicate, though the jeep was in high velocity, but the bus was also in excessive speed and dashed. A reasonable 3 precaution expected from both the vehicles to avoid the accident, was not adhered to resulting in the accident. The bus was also severely damaged as could be seen as referred in the panchanama. The statements of the witnesses indicated, both the vehicle drivers were at fault. 5. Before the learned Member, the driver of bus was examined. However, he did not make himself available to face cross examination, though several opportunities were availed by the Department. Consequently, the evidence in chief of the driver will not be of any avail to the appellant. The fact remains, the matter has gone with such evidence on record. Based on the documents, the leaned Judge has recorded with the evidence adduced by the claimant that the S.T. Driver was at negligence, is not shattered. 6. In the scenario of the matter, I hold that the negligence was rightly fixed at the bus driver and 4 the jeep driver to the proportion of 50 %. 7. Then comes the calculation of income, multiplier and dependency. The widow is of 45 years. Her 2 sons namely Ram and Laxman are of 20 years age and are students. The deceased was a Cashier in M.S.R.T.C. drawing salary of Rs. 10,952/- per month as per the salary slip of September, 2002. This is not in dispute. The learned Judge has effected 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and then reached to calculation of annual earning to be of Rs. 87,616/- and applied multiplier of 11 as deceased was 52 years old. The calculations carved out by the learned Member including consortium in para no. 9 of the Judgment, are in tune with settled legal position, does not warrant any interference. The learned Member has already fixed liability of original respondent no. 3 to 50 % of the total compensation. 5 8. The Appeal dismissed. No costs. 9. The order of furnishing security for withdrawal of the deposited amount in the light of the disposal of the Appeal, shall not survive. [ K.U.CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE knp/FA1047.09 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14