1 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.2188/2000 Bhaunri Lal & others vs Achal Singh & ors. S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the M.A.C.T Act, 1988 against the Award dated 7.9.2000 passed by the Judge, M.A.C.T. Jaipur District, Jaipur, in MAC No. 116/96 (Bhaunri Lal & others vs Achal Singh & others) by which a sum of Rs.2,34,000/- has been awarded to the claimants. DATE OF JUDGMENT :- MARCH, 2009. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI. Mr.Vinay Mathur, counsel for the appellants. None appeared for respondent No.1,2 & 3. Mr.Vinod Tyagi, counsel for respondent No.4. BY THE COURT : This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 7.9.2000 passed by the Judge, MACT, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Claim No.116/96 ( Bhaunri Lal & others vs Achal Singh & ors.) by which tribunal awarded claim of Rs.2,34,000/-. 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 22.11.1995 deceased Ram Pratap was plying truck No.6987. Respondent No.1 while driving bus No. RJ-11P-013 rashly and negligently collided with truck and caused death of Ram Pratap. Respondent No.2 and 3 are the owners of the bus and bus has been insured by Respondent No.4. Appellants who are parents, wife and daughters of deceased, claimed compensation. Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 did not file reply. Respondent No.4 filed reply and raised many objections and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. After recording evidence, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,34,000/- against which this appeal has been filed. None appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1,2 and 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned Tribunal has committed error in assessing only Rs.1,500/- per month income of the deceased 3 whereas income of Rs.2,000/- per month has been proved,hence, appeal may be accepted and awarded amount may be enhanced whereas learned counsel for respondent submitted that already excessive amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal so appeal may be dismissed. As far income of the deceased Ram Pratap is concerned, A.W. 1 Gulli who is wife of deceased has stated in her statement that deceased was getting Rs.2,000/- per month as salary and Rs.50/- per day allowance. She has denied this suggestion that deceased was not working as driver. She has also denied suggestion that she has exaggerated salary of deceased. Appellants have not produced any document pertaining to salary of the deceased. No other witnesses has supported statement of Gulli. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that deceased was getting Rs.2000/- per month salary and learned Tribunal has not committed error in assessing income of deceased to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. 4 Learned Tribunal has rightly assessed dependency @ Rs.1500/- per month of the d appellants. Age of the deceased was near about 24 years and as per II- Schedule multiplier of 17 should have been applied whereas learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 18. As per II- Schedule in the head of General Damages Rs.9500/- should have been awarded whereas learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/-. Thus it becomes clear that Tribunal has awarded excessive amount,hence, no question for enhancement of awarded compensation. Consequently, appeal of the appellants is dismissed. (K.S.CHAUDHARI)J. CKThanvi