1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 112 OF 1996 Maharshtra State Road Transport Corporation through its Divisional Controller, Nanded. .. APPELLANT VERSUS Digamber Namdeo Lokhande age 18 years, occ. labour r/o Dongarkada, Tq. Kalamnuri Dist. Parbhani .. RESPONDENT Mr. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.D. Patnurkar, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 1 st FEBRUARY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Respondent – Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has approached this court raising exception to the judgment and award passed in MACP no. 306/1994 decided by the District Judge and Ex-Officio Member of MACT, Nanded on 21-12-1995. 2 2 Mother of the claimant, Laxmibai, was 40 years of age who lost her life as a result of accidental fire to the S.T. Bus and the other passengers traveling in the bus also sustained injuries as a result of the accident. IN all five claim petitions were taken up for consideration by the tribunal and by common judgment delivered on 21-12-1995, four claim petitions came to be allowed. Claimant in the instant matter is awarded sum of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation of the amount. 3 Order passed in one of the claim petitions bearing MACP no. 302/1994 which was also decided by common award passed by the tribunal on 21-12-1995 was challenged by the appellant herein i.e. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation in First Appeal no. 111/1996. Claimant in the said claim petition also lost his life. He was 23 years of age and was working as tailor and earning Rs.1,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month. In the absence of any supporting evidence, his earning was computed on the assumption that even if he would be 3 serving as a labourer, he would have earning of Rs.1,000/- per month and the tribunal computed his dependency at Rs.650/-. The analogy adopted by the tribunal is accepted by this court while rendering decision in First Appeal no. 111/96 and the appeal came to be dismissed. In the instant matter also the claimant claims that his mother was serving as a labourer and used to earn Rs.40/- to Rs.50/- per day. The tribunal estimated her income at Rs.30/- to Rs.35/- per day bringing her monthly income to Rs.1,000/- only and considering the deductions to the extent of 1/3 rd for her personal upkeepment, the tribunal computed the dependency at Rs.650/- per month and has computed compensation accordingly. The analogy adopted in the instant matter has parallel with the claim determined in claim petition no. 302/1994 and the challenge raised to the decision in the said award (MACP no. 302/94) by the appellant has been turned down by this court in First Appeal no. 111/1996 in view of judgment dt. 6-4-2009. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in the instant appeal. Reasons recorded by the tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous and the liability towards payment of compensation arrived 4 at also cannot be said to be excessive. There is no force in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/fa112.96.odt