1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE First Appeal No.1898 of 2008 With Civil Application No.4823 of 2008 The State of Maharashtra (through the Director of Insurance, 264 - MHADA, Opp.Kalanagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Appellant (Org.Opponent No.2) Vs. 1. Bandopant Shankar Killedar 2. Shilparani Bandopant Killedar 3. Swapnil Bandopant Killedar 4. The Commissioner (Transport) Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Respondents (Resp.nos.1 to 3 - org.applicants Resp.no.4 - org. Opponent No.1.) Ms.S.P.Manchekar for appellant. Mr.Rahul Walvekar for resp.no.4. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. January 6, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1. Report submitted by the office is hereby accepted. 2. Heard the learned AGP. This appeal filed by the State on behalf of the Director of Insurance arises from the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kolhapur on 10/1/2008 in Motor 2 Accident Claim No.58 of 2007. We have also noted that the Municipal Corporation (Kolhapur Municipal Transport) to whom the bus belongs has not challenged the award. 3. The applicant no.1 is the husband of the deceased - Madhavi and applicant nos.2 and 3 are her children. The deceased was working as Assistant Teacher in Chani Shetty Vidyalaya at Nigave Khalsa Taluka Karvir and on 7/10/2006 while applicant no.2 was driving the two wheeler and the deceased was the pillion rider, the vehicle met with an accident. In the said accident she died and the accident arose on account of the dash given by the bus of Kolhapur Municipal Transport (MH-09/A-8124). Crime No.195/2006 was registered against the bus driver for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC as well as Sections 119 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The applicants lodged the claim application and demanded a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs). 4. During the trial the applicant no.1 had stepped in the witness box on behalf of the claimants and copy 3 of the FIR and the panchanama were placed at Exhibits 21 and 22. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, recorded a finding that Madhavi died in the motor vehicle accident on 7/10/2006 and bus no.MH-09/A-8124 belonging to the Kolhapur Municipal Transport was the cause of the said accident. The Tribunal accepted the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- based on the salary certificate at Exhibit 27 and estimated the annual income at Rs.1,80,000/-. By giving a deduction of 10 per cent annually, income was estimated at Rs.1,62,000/- per annum and 1/3rd of the same was deducted as the deceased would spend that amount on her own maintenance. Thus the Tribunal held that the dependency amount would come to Rs.1,08,000/- per annum and the multiplier at 13 as claimed by the applicants was not accepted. Instead the Tribunal fixed the multiplier at 11 and fixed the compensation amount at Rs.11,88,000/-. Other allowances to the extent of Rs.5000/- (dependency allowance) and Rs.2000/- (funeral expenses) have also been granted. 5. We have heard the learned AGP and also considered the reasoning set out in the impugned award. We do not find any infirmity either in holding 4 that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- or in calculating the quantum of compensation payable on the basis of multiplier at 11 when the deceased was of the age of 47 years. No arguments have been advanced even on the issue of contributory negligence. 6. We are, therefore, satisfied that no interference is called for in the impugned award on any count and, therefore, this appeal must fail at the threshold. The same is hereby dismissed. 7. Civil application does not survive and the same stands disposed. (D.G.KARNIK,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)