1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.912 OF 2010. Smt.Sunita Atmaram/ Appasaheb and others. ...Appellants. Versus Suresh S/o Vithalrao Patil and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.R.Kedar, advocate for the appellants. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni, advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Mr.V.N.Upadhye, advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 18.10.2010. PER COURT 1. The present appellants are the original claimants who had filed petition under Motor 2 Vehicles Act, for compensation on account of death of deceased Atmaram, who was travelling on the motor-bike as a pillion rider. The jeep was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of the said jeep which gave dash to the motor-bike and deceased Atmaram died. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees one lac ninety five thousand), though the claimants had claimed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) as compensation amount. The claimants have assailed the said judgment and award being dissatisfied. 2. Mr.Kedar, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the driver of the motor- bike was also negligent and has directed to deduct 35% on the said count which is illegal. According to him, the age of the deceased being 25 years, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied. He also further contended that the amount towards love and affection should have been awarded individually to each claimants and 3 not Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) as a consolidated amount). 3. Per contra, Mr.Upadhye, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that in fact, the age of the deceased was 34 years at the time of death and the Tribunal has wrongly considered his age as 25 years. The said fact would be clear from the claim petition itself. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of contributory negligence. No fault can be found in that regard in the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the record and proceedings. As far as the aspect of contributory negligence is concerned, the same has rightly been discussed by the Tribunal and it does not require any interference. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant Nos.1 and 5 have died. Be that as it may, the multiplier of 12 that is applied appears to be totally inadequate and 4 improper. Taking into account the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 16 would be reasonable. The Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency to the extent of Rs.2,88,000/- and has deducted 35% towards contributory negligence. However, the multiplier which is applied is improper and multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied. As such the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.3,84,000/-(Rupees three lacs eighty four thousand). Deducting 35% towards contributory negligence, the claimants would be as such entitled to loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,49,600/- (Rupees two lacs forty nine thousand six hundred). 5. It also appears that no amount towards loss of love and affection has been awarded to each claimants. I award Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each under the said head. As such the applicants/appellants would be entitled to a total amount for Rs.2,79,600/- (Rupees two lacs seventy nine thousand six hundred). Hence, I pass the following order : 5 ORDER The order of the Tribunal is modified and it is held that the appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,79,600/- (Rupees two lacs seventy nine thousand six hundred) instead of Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees one lac ninety five thousand) as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of Rs.9% p.a. from the date of the application before the Tribunal till the date of realisation. The amount which is already received shall be deducted from the amount awarded by this Court. The present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay jointly and severally the said amount to the present appellants. The First Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/fa91210 6