1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.840/2006 (Bharata & anr. Vs. Teja & ors.) Date of Order :: 7th February 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Mahendra Trivedi for the appellant. ... By way of this appeal, parents of the vehicular accident victim Prakash, 22 years of age, seek enhancement over the amount of Rs.3,23,600/- awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara in Claim Case No.301/2004 towards compensation to them alongwith wife of the deceased. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having gone through the record, this Court is satisfied that this appeal for enhancement by the parents of the victim does not merit admission. For quantification of compensation, the claimants asserted that income of the deceased was at about Rs.150/- per day in milk vending. The Tribunal has gone through the statements of wife and mother of the deceased and for want of any cogent corroborative evidence has taken monthly income of the deceased at about Rs.2,100/- and after deducting one- third on the personal expenditure has adopted the multiplicand of Rs.16,800/- and applying multiplier of 17 has assessed 2 pecuniary loss at Rs.3,06,600/-. Allowing other compensation on non-pecuniary loss and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has made award in the sum of Rs.3,23,600/-. Learned counsel Mr. Mahendra Trivedi has strenuously contended that in view of the family set up and the business deceased was engaged in, the estimate put by the Tribunal on monthly income of the deceased has been much on the lower side and the same has resulted in injustice to the appellants who had been awarded meagre amount of compensation. Perusal of statement of wife of the victim makes out that though she stated the victim earning about Rs.100-150/- per day by milk vending and another Rs.20,000-25,000/- per annum in agriculture, she admitted in her cross-examination that victim was studying in college and that her father-in-law was having 5 cattles and 15 bighas of agricultural land. It is also borne out from the testimony of the wife and mother of the deceased that cultivation is got carried through labourers. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the estimate put by the Tribunal on the income of the deceased and loss of contribution to the claimants cannot be said to be insufficient or inadequate. The Tribunal has assessed pecuniary loss with application of maximum side multiplier of 17. 3 It also appears that wife of the deceased has already contracted second marriage and has not joined this appeal for enhancement. On an overall view of the matter, there does not appear any scope for enhancement at the instance of the appellants. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK