1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4772/2008 {Smt. Kaushliya & Others Versus Azad Singh & Others} Date of Order :: 1st December,2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Vinay Mathur for the appellants BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the appeal as well as on merits of the appeal also. 2. So far as condonation of delay in filing the appeal is concerned, the only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants were not informed by their counsel about passing of the judgment in the present case, therefore, the delay occurred in filing the appeal. However, he admits that he has not mentioned anything in the application that their counsel had told them for not attending his office or the court and they will call them as and when there will be any necessity or they will be informed by their counsel. In absence of such pleading, it cannot be assumed that their counsel was required to inform them. It was their duty also 2 to attend the case in Court and in these circumstances, I do not find any sufficient ground to condone the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal. 3. Apart-from above, I also examined the matter on merits. 4. This appeal has been preferred by claimant-appellants for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of Girish, who died in motor accident took place on 20th January, 2005 and being aggrieved with impugned award dated 19.12.2006 passed by Tribunal in Claim Case No. 372/2005. The claimants initially pleaded that deceased was 16 years of age and he was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. However, they could not prove his income during trial of the application. The date of birth of deceased was available on record. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that deceased was 14 years of age and was non- earning member. The counsel for the appellants also does not dispute that deceased was non earning member and unmarried boy of 14 years of age. The learned Tribunal awarded a total lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for death of Girish as compensation in favour of the appellants with interest @ 6% per annum from 3 the date of claim application till the date of realization of the amount. From the impugned award dated 19th December, 2006 passed in Claim Case No. 368/2005 itself it is clear that appellants have also received a total compensation of Rs. 15,44,660/- in respect of death of deceased Surya Prakash Jindal, who died in the same accident, who was husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellants no. 2 and 3. They have also been awarded interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,44,660/-. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded in the present case for death of Girish, who was unmarried and non-earning member of 14 years of age is just, fair and reasonable and cannot be said to be inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly when the appellants have also received more than a sum of rupees fifteen lakh in another claim application. 5. In view of above discussion, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 4