1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.3708/2007 Deepak Kumar Pandey v/s Jaswant Singh & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 17th November,2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Shobhit Tiwari, for the appellant. Shri H.R. Kumawat,for the respondents. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. The contesting respondents are represented by their counsel. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of. The claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in respect of death of their unmarried daughter namely, Anurakti Pandey aged about 17 years who died in motor accident took place on 11.6.2003 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 2.5.2005 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) NO.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,37,000/- in their favour. 2 The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month as stated by the appellant in his statement and in awarding the lump sum amount of Rs.2,25,000/- only under the head of loss of income. Therefore, the impugned award may be modified and proper compensation may be awarded in the case. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the deceased was unmarried girl of 17 years and a student of Class XII. There was no documentary evidence in support of income of the deceased and in absence thereof, the learned Tribunal was right in awarding the lump sum amount of Rs.2,25,000/- of compensation on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi and another Vs. Musafir Paswan and another (2005(1) TAC 609). He, therefore, contended that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case, is just and reasonable and no interference in it, is called for. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award, particularly; the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of the issue No.4 relating to quantum of compensation. AW 1, Deepak Kumar, the father of the deceased Anurakti Pandey, in his statement stated that 3 his daughter was 17 years of age and was a student of Class XII. He further stated that she was earning Rs.4000/- per month from tuition. The learned Tribunal has observed that no documentary evidence has been placed on record about the income of the deceased. It is relevant to mention that the best evidence available with the appellant was of guardian/parents of the students to whom the deceased was teaching to prove the income of the deceased but they were not examined. The appellant was interested witness as the entire amount of compensation will be received by him only, therefore, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, to corroborate his statement, his testimony alone cannot be accepted or made basis for assessing the income of deceased or dependency in the case. The learned Tribunal in absence of any cogent evidence, relied upon Manju's case (supra) and on that basis, awarded the lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-. The deceased was non-earning member and the amount of compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- awarded in the present case is just and reasonable under the head of “loss of income”. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- for funeral/other expenses. Thus the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,37,000/-. The judgment of the learned Tribunal is based on 4 the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above which is fully applicable in the present case. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.K. Jain),J. Chauhan/