1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.600 OF 2009 with C.A.NO.12301 OF 2008. Balbhim s/o Laxman Gaikwad - APPELLANT VERSUS 1) Gayabai w/o Sunil Shinde and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.KN Lokhande, Adv. h/for Mr. BV Wagh, Advocate for Appellant; ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6th January, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant/original Respondent No.1. 2) The Award in M.A.C.P.No.82/2004 before the learned President, M.A.C.T., Ahmednagar, dated 19th June, 2008, is assailed on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle is not made a party; income of the deceased is not properly proved and that no opportunity was given to the 2 present appellant (original respondent no.1 - Balbhim). 3) The record rebels against the appellant that there was no service. So the first objection is virtually diluted. Then comes about income of the deceased. The learned Judge has, though had record at Exhibit-24, the 7/12 extracts and also evidence of Gayabai, one of the claimant, still has computed the notional annual income of the deceased to be Rs.36,000/- and considering his age to 30 years, applied multiplier of 13. The learned Judge has rightly deducted 1/3rd and assessed the dependency @ Rs.24,000/- and added the expenses, making the figure at Rs.3,40,000/- The insurance of UNO Car was for Rs.1,00,000/- of the passengers and consequently, the limit of indemnification could not have been exceeded beyond Rs.1,00,000/-, which the learned Judge has rightly effected. The order under challenge does not smacks of any illegality. No interference, First Appeal with Civil Application dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa600.09