Digambar S/O Rajaram Wathurkar ... vs Dadarao S/O Kisanrao Chawat And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15259 Bom

                                                                                                                                         fa955.08+841.08.odt
                                                                                        1


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 955/2008
    Devidas Hanumantrao Wathurkar and others...Versus...Dadarao Kisanrao
                           Chawat and others
                                  and
                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 841/2008
    Devidas Hanumantrao Wathurkar and others...Versus...Dadarao Kisanrao
                           Chawat and others

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                                                             Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------
                                            Ms. Bhagyashree Reddy, Advocate h/f Shri V.H.Kedar for Respondent No.2



                                                                                        CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 25/10/2021

Heard Ms. Bhagyashree Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. She submits that in the entire matter only Digambar Rajaram Wathurkar has been examined on behalf of the claimant and though in the affidavit, he has stated that deceased was serving as a cleaner in the ill-fated vehicle TATA 403 matador and was earning Rs. 3000/- as a salary, however, in his cross examination, he has categorically stated that he is not aware with whom the deceased was working or of his earnings and has further admitted that he would be retiring after six years on superannuation. She further submits that there is no proof brought on record as to the age of the dependents and the terms of the employment and therefore, the multiplier applied by the learned fa955.08+841.08.odt

Tribunal would be proper and correct. She submits that the same argument should apply to the other matters also and justifies the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.

Mr. Chopde, learned counsel for the appellants is absent, considering which list the matter on 26.11.2021.

JUDGE

rvjalit

Digitally sign byRAJESH VASANTRAO JALIT Location:

Signing Date:25.10.2021 17:55