1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 4164 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12477 OF 2009 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Shobha w/o Navnath Humbe and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, advocate for the appellant Mr. V.S. Tanwade, advocate for respondents-claimants. ..... CORAM: R.G. KETKAR, J. DATED: 19TH NOVEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 The appellant-Insurance company has preferred this first appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 27.8.2008, passed by the Learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad in M.A.C.P. No. 244 of 2006. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and directed the appellant herein and the owner of the offending vehicle, to jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs.9,66,420/- to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5-original claimants with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the entire amount. The amount of Rs.9,66,420/- was to include no fault liability amount. 2 2. The matter was heard by this Court initially on 16.12.2008. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, the Court came to the conclusion that this was not the case of contributory negligence and driver of the heavy goods carrying vehicle bearing No. KA-39/3777, alone was negligent. The court accordingly restricted the hearing of the appeal on the limited point of correctness of quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 3 I have heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel in support of this appeal and Shri V.S. Tanwade, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 4 Admit. By consent of the parties, heard forthwith for final hearing. 5 The limited controversy in the present appeal is now in respect of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that deceased Navnath was working as peon at Shanuktana Deshmukh Prashala, Ansurda, on monthly salary of Rs.6,731/-. It is also not in dispute that the age of Navnath was 30 years at the time of accident. In para 22 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has considered that gross salary was Rs.6,731/- and net salary was Rs.4,716/- p.m. The deductions were Rs.2015/-, which included GPF Rs.700/-, Society loan of Rs.200/-, RD Rs.100/-, LIC Rs.840/- and Profession Tax Rs.175/-. From the total earnings of Rs.6,731/-, the Tribunal recorded the finding that Rs.4,370/- corresponding to Rs.52,440/- per annum would be a loss of earning on the demise of Navnath. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal committed error in applying the multiplier of 18. 3 He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier 16 would be appropriate multiplier. 6 On the other hand, Shri Tanwade, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Solapur Municipal Corporation and another Vs Renuka Abhimanyu Medidar and others, 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 327, to contend that as per the provisions of Motor vehicles Act, 1988, as amended, as per Schedule II thereof, the multiplier would be 18, since deceased was running 30 years at the time of accident. 7 With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have been taken through the material on record. In para 25 of the judgment, the Tribunal has considered this aspect and taking into consideration the age of the respondent No.1 herein, as also the age of respondent Nos. 2 to 5, who are minor children of deceased Navnath, he applied multiplier 18. On that basis, the Tribunal awarded compensation. perusal of the Schedule II under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, indicates that if the age of victim is above 25 years but not exceeding 30 years, the multiplier would be 18. If the age of the victim is above 30 years but not exceeding 35 years, the multiplied would be 17. If the age of victim above 35 years but not exceeding 40 years, then multiplier would be 16. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the multiplier is 16 would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8 As set out earlier, the multiplier 16 would be in respect of victim, 4 who is above 35 years of age but not exceeding 40 years. From record, it is clear that at the time of accident deceased Navnath was running 30 years. If that be so, in my opinion, the Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier of 18 as the age of Navnath was not exceeding 30 years. 9 In view of this, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the amount of compensation. No interference is called for. The appeal accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. An amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. 10 In view of disposal of appeal, the civil application No. 12477 of 2008 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) rlj/