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.1975/2000. Smt.Devi & Others Versus. Harjendra Singh @ Sahib Singh & Others. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the M.A.C.T. Act, against the award dated 6.12.1999 passed by the Judge, M.A.C.T Ajmer in Claim No.1004/1999 (Smt.Devi & Others Vs.Harjendra Singh & Others.)by which the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,600/-. Date of Judgment ::: 24th March,2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.CHAUDHARI. Mr.Vinai Mathur on behalf of V.V.Harith for the appellant. Mr.R.S.Rathore on behalf of Mr.S.C.Srivastav for respondent No.3. ..2.. BY THE COURT : This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 6.12.99 passed by Judge, MACT, Ajmer in Claim No.1004/99 (Smt.Devi Vs. Harjender Singh & Others) by which the learned tribunal awarded claim of Rs.1,25,600/-. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.92, deceased Vasu Dev was going in truck No.DIG 4605 with 40 bags of chili. Respondent No.1 was driving truck rashly and negligently, so, truck overturned, on account of which, Vasudev died. Respondent No.2 is the registered owner of the truck and this truck was insured by respondent No.3. The appellants who are wife, sons and daughters of deceased claimed compensation. Respondent No.1 & 2 did not appear before the Tribunal and respondent No.3 filed reply ..3.. and raised many objections and prayed for dismissal of claim petition. After recording the evidence, the learned tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,600/-, against which, this appeal has been filed. Appearance of respondent No.1 & 2 was dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.3 and also perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned tribunal has committed error in assessing income of deceased and deducting too much amount from his income for ascertaining dependency and further the tribunal has committed error in applying multiplier of 10 instead of 13, hence, appeal may be accepted and awarded amount may be enhanced, whereas learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper, ence appeal may be dismissed. ..4.. As far age of deceased is concerned, in claim petition, age of deceased has been shown as 46 years and in postmortem report his age has been shown 50 years. In such circumstances, age of deceased can be presumed between 46 to 50 years. As per Motor Vehicles Act in the age group of 45-50 years multiplier of 13 should have been applied whereas the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 10. As far income of the deceased is concerned, A.W.1 Smt.Devi wife of deceased Vasudev has stated in her statement that deceased used to earn Rs.5000/- to 6000/- per month and used to give Rs.4000/- to her for house hold expenses. She has admitted that she has not produced any document pertaining to business and income of deceased. She has even not produced any document pertaining to bags of chili loaded in the truck. She ..5.. does not know whether deceased used to pay Income Tax or not ?. In the absence of any document pertaining to business, it cannot be presumed that deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month. Learned tribunal has assessed Rs.1050/- as income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages prevailed in 1992. As per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, in case of person not having any income, notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum is to be presumed. In such circumstances, deceased's per annum income should have been assessed at Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.12,600/-. Learned tribunal has deducted Rs.420/- per month as expenses which the victim would have incurred towards himself, but as per Second Schedule 1/3rd income should be deducted in consideration of expenses which the deceased would have incurred on maintaining himself had he been alive. ..6.. In such circumstances, dependency of appellants comes to Rs.10,000/- per annum and appellants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- X 13 = 1,30,000/- in the head of dependency. As per Schedule Second, Rs.9500/- should have been allowed in the head of general damages whereas learned tribunal has awarded Rs.35,000/-. In the light of above discussion, appellants were entitled to Rs.1,39,500/- whereas learned tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,600/-. Hence, awarded compensation is to be enhanced accordingly. Consequently, in the light of above discussion, appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 6.12.99 passed by the Judge, MACT, Ajmer is modified to the extent of Rs.1,39,500/- instead of Rs.1,25,600/- with interest awarded by the Tribunal. (K.S.Chaudhari)J. k.