1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. FIRST APPEAL No.182/2004. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 21st February, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.K.J.Khanorkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.A.J.Pophaly, Advocate for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. There was head-on collision between Auto-rickshaw and Truck in which Gayabai died. Her heirs filed an application for grant of compensation as against the owner of the truck and the Insurance Company. However, it appears from the judgment of the lower court that the owner or the Insurance Company of Auto-Rickshaw were not made party. The learned Judge of the Tribunal found that the claimants were entitled to claim compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. However, an award 2 of Rs.63,500/- was passed because of the fact that it was proportionate to the liability of the non- applicants in the claim petition i.e. 50%. The age of deceased was found to be more than 53 years and the learned Judge has, therefore, applied multiplier of 12. The application of multiplier of 12 was quite justified in view of the fact that the deceased was more than 55 years of age and there were no dependent in fact on him. I do not find that the learned judge committed any error in awarding the compensation of Rs.63,500/- as against one of the offending vehicles and owner thereof. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company herein that the appeal as against respondent no.2, who is owner of the vehicle, has been dismissed by the court for non-service of the summons and payment of the Bhatta. No appeal can, therefore, proceed against Insurance Company without owner being party to it, since Insurance Company is supposed to reimburse the owner. In view of this, the appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE pzc