1) Heard. Admit. Heard finally. In this group of appeals, respective appellants, i.e. either the claimants or the insurance companies have questioned legality of multiplier fixed by the respective Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, under the Motor Vehicles Act.

2) Facts in each of the appeals are at variance to a larger extent, but, since common question of law, referred to above, is involved, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

FIRST APPEAL NO.1611/2013(MACP NO.44/2009).

3) Smt. Syeda Aleemunbee, sought compensation for death of Syed Shabbir. An amount of Rs.6,21,500/with interest @ 9% was awarded on 22.09.2011. Same is challenged by the appellant/insurance company on the ground of quantum. The appellant/insurance company feels that age of parents of the deceased at the time of accident was in the age-group of 40-45 years. The trial court should have applied multiplier of 15 and it should have deducted half of the amount towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor, instead of 1/3rd. The income of the deceased should have been notionally treated at Rs. 3,000/- per month instead of holding the same to be Rs.4,500/-.

FIRST APPEAL NO.60/2013(MACP NO.693/2008):

4) Anna Vithoba Udmale, asserted that deceased Ashok was a pedestrian, suffered an accident on 26.08.2008 at around 8.30 a.m. by dash of a tractor bearing No.RJ-06-RA-0529.

5) Compensation of Rs.3,32,000/- was awarded. The grievance is, since the deceased was a bachelor, for computation of compensation, multiplier applicable to the ages of parents, should have been applied.

FIRST APPEAL NO.2992/2013(MACP NO.211/2009)

6) The appellant/insurance company, insurer of Skoda Car has challenged the Award On 11.2.2009, 20 years old deceased Omey, along with his friend, was proceeding on motorcycle. Skoda make Car bearing registration No.MH-20-BC-6600, in high and excessive speed dashed him. He succumbed on the spot while pillion rider Aashutosh Sasane was seriously injured. The learned Member of the MACT awarded Rs.4,94,000/-against owner of the Car, and also directed the insurance company to pay the amount and recover from the owner. The Tribunal did not consider income of the deceased and accepted it as Rs.4,500/- per month. Multiplier of 18 was applied as age of the deceased was 20 years. The learned Member had deducted half of the amount from yearly earning towards personal expenses.

FIRST APPEAL NO.1233/2012(MACP NO.77/2010):

7) M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. questions the Award moved by Pandharinath Narsing Bhore under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles act, concerning accidental death of Amol (deceased)23 years old bachelor. The deceased was riding the motor-cycle bearing No.MH-24/K-2666 in moderate speed and by correct side. A jeep was driven rashly and negligently and it tried to overtake the motor cycle of deceased gave dash to the motor cycle. Deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries succumbed to injuries on the spot.

8) In the Award, multiplier of 18 was applied treating notional income of deceased to Rs.36,000/- per annum, deducted 50% for personal expenses. The insurance company feels that the claimants (parents) were 60-65 years; the multiplier should have been in consonance to claimants’ ages.

FIRST APPEAL NO.823/2013 (MACP NO.1/2010)

9) Sayeedabee Jamalkhan Pathan , original claimant, has challenged the Award recorded by learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed for Rs.1,35,000/-. The grievance is, the dependency is wrongly calculated @ Rs.2,000/- per month. The age and monthly earning of the deceased should have been considered. Deduction of 50% of amount of salary towards personal expenses was without assigning any reason. The multiplier should have been 18 instead of 5. The Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was also responsible for the accident though the evidence indicate the driver of offending truck was also responsible.

FIRST APPEAL NO.1678