IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Pyare Lal & Ors. Vs. Jagmohan Meena & Ors. (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.843/2006) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Date of Judgment: August 1, 2008 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. J. P. Gupta, for the appellants. Ms. Sharda Pathak, for respondents. BY THE COURT: The appellants have challenged the award dated 17-11- 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dausa [Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Dausa] (`the learned Tribunal' for short) whereby the learned Tribunal for the death of Hukam Singh has granted a compensation of Rs.2,41,640/-. Since the claimants are dissatisfied by the meager amount of compensation, they have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 2. In a nutshell, on 23-12-2000, Hukam Singh was travelling in a jeep, bearing No.RJ-02/C-1657, to Naugaon. Near Gajipur Jaton ka Khurra the driver of the said jeep stopped the jeep on the correct side of the road. However another jeep, bearing registration No.RJ- 29C-1052, being driven rashly and negligently came from behind and struck the jeep which was standing on the correct side of the road. Consequently, Hukam Singh suffered grievous injuries. Subsequently, he expired. The claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to prove their case, they examined three witnesses and exhibited thirteen documents. Although the Insurance company did not examine any witness, it exhibited two documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as afore mentioned. 3. Mr. J.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that income of Hukam Singh has been assessed on the lower side. According to claimants, he was earning Rs.6000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the time and assessed the income as merely Rs.2160/- per month. Secondly, once the income of deceased has been assessed under the minimum wages Act, the learned Tribunal is not justified in deducting 1/3 amount from the income on the ground that deceased would have spent 1/3 amount upon himself. Thirdly, since the age of mother of deceased was 45 years, the multiplier of 16 should have been applied, whereas the learned Tribunal has applied only a multiplier of 13. Hence, the very basis of loss of dependency is misplaced. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Sharda Pathak, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that in earlier petition filed by claimants, they had claimed the age of mother to be 41 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal is justified in applying the multiplier of 13. Secondly, it is the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 that in case of death of deceased 1/3 income should be considered the amount would have spent by deceased upon himself. Hence, even if Minimum Wages Act is applied for assessing the income of deceased, still 1/3 amount has to be deducted in accordance with law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the material available on record and perused the impugned award. 6. Since the claimants did not substantiate their plea that Hukam Singh was earning Rs.6000/- per month, the learned Tribunal was justified in applying the minimum wages, which was prevalent at the time of death of deceased. Thus, the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of deceased as Rs.2,160/- per month. 7. It is indeed a requirement of law, as reflected in Second Schedule of the Act, that it is presumed that deceased would have spent 1/3 amount of his income upon himself and 2/3 amount of his income upon his family. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/3 amount from the income of the deceased, as the amount he would have spent upon himself. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegallity in deducting 1/3 amount from the income of deceased. 8. Similarly, in an earlier petition filed by claimants the age of mother was shown 41 years. Merely, because the age of mother has been shown as 45 years in present claim petition, the claimants are not entitled to a higher multiplier. Hence, the learned Tribunal is justified in applying the multiplier of 13. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is devoid of merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn