IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1256/2004 SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. Vs. ARJUN SINGH & ORS. Date: 14.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. D.K. Bhardwaj for the claimants-appellants. Mr. Sandeep Mathur for the respondent No.2. Mr. Saurav Purohit for the respondent No.3. **** The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of the compensation awarded vide judgment dated 29.04.2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 186/2004 (1031/1996), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been partly allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,13,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. has been awarded in favour of the appellants. The case of the claimants-appellants is that the compensation awarded to them is very meagre and the same cannot said to be just and reasonable looking to the age and income of the deceased. It is contended on behalf of the claimants-appellants that the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident and he was IV class servant in the Government department and was getting the salary of Rs. 2,830/- per month after deductions, but vide impugned judgment dated 29.04.2004, the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been partly allowed by the Tribunal without considering the age of the deceased, whereas it is admitted fact that the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of death and multiplier has also not been correctly applied considering the age of the deceased. As per the Schedule the correct multiplier is 17, whereas the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 15, therefore, the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants may be enhanced. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, it is not disputed that as per the post- mortem report Ex.P4, the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident and while passing the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has considered the age of the dependents of the deceased and as per Ex.P4, the age of the father and mother of the deceased was 40 and 39 years respectively. Apart from that, the Tribunal has also considered the income of the deceased as the deceased was IV class servant in the Government department and was getting the salary of Rs. 2,830/- per month and after deduction he was getting the salary of Rs. 2,575/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of Rs. 2,575/- i.e Rs. 850/-, for the purpose of awarding compensation, Rs. 1,725/- has been considered as income by the Tribunal and looking to the age of the dependents the multiplier of 15 has been applied by the Tribunal which cannot said to be incorrect and accordingly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,13,000/- in favour of the claimants-appellants, which appears to be just and reasonable and the same requires no interference by this Court as the claimants-appellants failed to make out any case for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 29.04.2004. Consequently, the present civil misc. appeal fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/ (DJ)