1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1. FA/890/2007 With CA/4715/2007 In FA/890/2007 With CA/8127/2008 In FA/890/2007 With CA/1203/2010 In FA/890/2007 (New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Laxmibai Kisan Pagare and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.P.Chapalgaonkar, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. A.B.Kale, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:3-2-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard. The Insurance Company feels aggrieved by the award in terms of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act granting amount of Rs.2,25,500/-. Mr. Chapalgaonkar, Counsel, submits that the multiplier applied of 18 years is erroneous and misplaced and hence, needs interference. 2 2. The ground realities in the matter display that the mother Laxmibai lost her son; though, she has other two sons between 17 to 19 years, they could not be said to be earning hands. It is difficult to comprehend that they were fitting in the term of `major' or `earning' son. Considering the age of the mother and the difficulties with which she is required to face in future, though the Counsel submits that the multiplier should have been of 8, I find that the application of multiplier of 18, as indicated by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon, cannot be said to be patently illegal, requiring any interference. 3. The judgment in the matter of Ramesh Singh and Another Vs. Satbir Singh and Another ( 2008 AIR SCW 1238) will not come to the rescue of the appellant as the Apex Court, in categorical terms illustrated, the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act to be used as a guide and not as a 3 mathematical formula. The fact situation, as stated above, invited the learned Member to fix the multiplier of 18 which, to repeat, is not erroneous. No other demerit in the order of the learned Judge. First Appeal lacks merit, dismissed. Civil Applications (Nos. 1203/2010 and 8127/2008) for withdrawal moved by the claimants are allowed as the very appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed. Stay petition (C.A. No. 4715/2007) dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/890-07fa