1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.285/2009 Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court s’ Orders or directions and Court’s or Judge’s Order Registrar s Orders.. ’ Mr.Anand Patil, Adv. For appellants; Mrs. Ranjana Reddy, Adv. For R.No.1 --- CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 19th JUNE, 2009 --- P.C.:- 1) Heard Counsel for the appellant/claimant and Respondent No.1. 2) In an accident, unfortunately sixteen years’ old promising young boy, a pillion rider at motorcycle, lost his precious life, due to collusion with the bus driven by driver of MSRTC. The learned Member of MACT, Latur, while assessing the evidence, found that it was the contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle coupled with the negligence carved out with the driver of MSRTC. I do 2 not think that the observation of the learned Judge needs any interference. Added to it is the miserable situation for the claimant, as the driver of the motorcycle or for that purpose, the insurance Company, is not arrayed in the petition. That apart, the driver was best witness to narrate the events, he has not come forward to support the claimants/appellants. 3) In spite of this aspect, the other situation in the matter, which needs consideration is, the deceased had secured 83% marks in SSC examination. He was 12th Std. Student with meritorious capabilities. He was the only son of the claimants. These aspects cannot be ignored while assessing the claim. The loss suffered by the appellants, basically need not be measured with any yardstick as the agony, that they will be carrying throughout their life unmatched. Human life which has having uncertainties, though needs consideration, but the baffling incident, due to which the deceased without any fault at his part, 3 suffered making the appellants in ignominious condition, also needs consideration. 4) Taking survey of evidence adduced and particularly multiplier applied by the learned Judge, as referred in paragraph 10, internal page 13, of the judgment, needs consideration. The learned Judge has applied multiplier of 10. However, considering the age of the deceased, the rational multiplier should have been 15. Without making further comments on the notional income that has been assessed by the learned Judge, only addition/ modification in the order requires as to the extent of application of multiplier and that apart the addition towards funeral expenses of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as consortium. In the situation, the amount after making the multiplier of 15 comes to Rs. 1,25,000/- and added to it are Rs. 20,000/-. Hence, order - (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order of learned Judge of the Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 85,000/- is modified to Rs. 4 1,45,000/-. Other details/directions shall remain unaltered. No costs. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/bdv/fa285.09