// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4472/2008 With S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.2856/2008 Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Alwar and Another Versus Ashia Wife of Aas Mohd. And Others Date of Order ::: 11.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri N.S. Rathore, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The non-claimants No.2 and 3/appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 4th August, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,82,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondents in respect of death of Aas Mohammad, who died in motor accident took place on 29th May, 2005. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants are twofolds – first is that // 2 // the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in applying the multiplier of 13 as the age of deceased at the relevant time was 50 years and as per Second Schedule appended with Section 163A of the Act of 1988 the multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied; the second submission is that there was no basis for assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per day and the said finding is also liable to be set-aside. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned Award, particularly the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation. So far as first submission regarding applying the multiplier of 13 in place of 11 is concerned, the learned Tribunal observed that AW-1 Ashia wife of the deceased stated the age of deceased as 38 years but in the postmortem- report (Exhibit-4) the age of the deceased was mentioned as 50 years. In these circumstances, the Tribunal determined the age of deceased as 50 years. As per Second Schedule the multiplier of 13 is applicable where the age of the deceased is above 45 years and below 50 years; the multiplier of 11 is applicable where the deceased is above 50 years and below 55 years // 3 // of age. In the present case, the age of deceased was above 38 years and below 50 years, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the finding of the learned Tribunal in applying the multiplier of 13. So far as the second submission regarding assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, I find that there was no documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased and, in absence of the same, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wage of Rs.100/- and consequently awarded the amount of compensation. The finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard is also justified. AW-1 Ashia Wife of the deceased, in her statement, stated that her husband was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence in support of it was filed and, in these circumstances, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages i.e. Rs.100/- per day. The said finding is also legal and justified. In view of the above, I find that there is no force in both the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants. Even otherwise, I find that looking to the age and income of the deceased, the amount of compensation of // 4 // Rs.3,82,000/- awarded in the present case does not appear to be a bonanza, but it is a just and reasonable amount. The learned Tribunal is required to pass an Award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988, which appears to be just and reasonable. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal itself, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//