954-FA-3952-2022.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 3952 OF 2022 Jijabai Wd/ Balaji @ Baloba Khokale Age: 60 years, Occu. Household, R/o Dhanyahiwadi, Tal. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded, At Present Sanja Road, Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad … Appellant VERSUS 1. Pundalik S/o Baliram Dhekale Age – Major, Occup: Business, R/o Saundane, Tal. Dhule, Dist.: Dhule 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Ofcer, Bhanu Nagar, Solapur – Aurangabad Road, Behind Bank of Maharashtra, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad … Respondents ….. Mr. Sushant Choudhari, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. U. S. Malte, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ….. CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATE : 22.04.2025 FINAL ORDER : 1. This is the Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’] by the Original Claimant, in Motor Accident Claim Petition [MACP] No.280/2016 decided by the learned Tribunal at Osmanabad, vide Judgment and Award dated 13/04/2017, granting compensation of Rs.26,62,000/- with future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of fling of the MACP till realization of the amount, inclusive of no fault liability amount. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company. None for Respondent No.1 though served. 1 2025:BHC-AUG:11696 954-FA-3952-2022.odt 3. The learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that, the Appeal is fled only on the ground of Multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal. He submits that, the learned Tribunal considered the age of the Claimant, who was the Mother of Deceased aged 35 years instead of age of the Deceased. By considering the age of Deceased, the correct Multiplier would be 15 in view of the Judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another ; [2009] 6 SC 121. He submits that, the Appeal be allowed to that extent and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal be corrected. 4. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company does not dispute the settled position under the law that, when the Deceased was major and aged 35 years, the Multiplier will be applicable by considering the age of Deceased, as per the above referred Judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [Supra]. He submits that, appropriate orders be passed. 5. The Paper shows that, the above referred MACP was preferred by the Mother aged 60 years, of Deceased – Datta Balaji Khokle, whose age is shown as 35 years. Admittedly, the learned Tribunal applied the Multiplier of [9] nine by considering the age of Appellant as 60 years. In light of the above referred Judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [Supra], the Multiplier should have been applied, by considering the age of Deceased. Both the sides agree that, Multiplier of 15 would be applicable. The revised calculation towards amount of compensation would be as follows :- [a] The amount of yearly Income of the Deceased after deduction of 50% towards Living and Personal Expenses and adding 50% amount towards Future Prospectus, is quantifed by the learned Tribunal as Rs.2,91,705/-. By applying the Multiplier of 15 to the said amount, the 2 954-FA-3952-2022.odt amount comes to Rs.43,75,575/-. There is no challenge to the other Components under which the compensation is granted. Thus, the fnal amount of compensation would be as follows :- Loss of Dependency Rs.43,75,575/- Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Loss of Love and Afection Rs.1,00,000/- Hospital and Medicine Charges Rs.1,74,123/- Rs. 46,74,698/- 6. In view of the above, the impugned Judgment and Award stands corrected accordingly. Appeal stands disposed of. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] Sameer/April-2025 3 Signed by: Md. Sameer Q. Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/04/2025 19:05:32