-1- C.M.A. No.2064/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2064 of 2005. Sushri Monika daughter of Shri Ram Babu Yadav & Others V E R S U S Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Date of Judgment :::: 10/08/2010 Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalip Singh Shri Ram Singh Rathore, Counsel for the appellants Shri Aladeen Khan, Counsel for the respondents *** Per Court : This miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Essential Commodity Act), Jaipur vide award dated 07.04.2005 in Motor Accident Claim Case No.562/2005 (1875/01). The short submission of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in not taking into account the Income Tax Return submitted by the deceased immediately preceding the accident which took place on 23.05.2001 and has erred in taking into account the Income Tax Return for the year 1998-99 instead. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the deceased showed her income on the basis of the earnings from the partnership firm. The partnership firm was reportedly doing the business as a medical -2- C.M.A. No.2064/2005 store, but so far as the deceased is concerned there was neither any drug license in the name of the deceased nor is there anything on record to show as to what was the capital investment of the deceased in the aforesaid firm. It was also stated that the deceased was only educated upto the 8th Class and it is highly doubtful as to whether or not the deceased was at all doing the business as contended by the appellant. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I find from the impugned award of the learned Tribunal that the learned Tribunal has dealt with the aforesaid contention in Para No.16 of the award. It may be true that the returns filed immediately before the date of the accident for the year 2001-2002 shown an income of about Rs.62000/- as against Rs.43000/- which has been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal in respect of the year 1998-99. No exception can be taken to the same as the possibility of submitting exaggerated returns of income immediately preceding the time of the accident cannot be ruled out. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, however, which are available on record and having gone to contents of the judgment in Para Nos.16 to 18, I am of the opinion that the impugned award does not call for any interference either on the ground of computation of income or the question of -3- C.M.A. No.2064/2005 multiplier. The learned Tribunal has further awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection etc., and has awarded total amount of Rs.5.09 lacs, which cannot be said to be inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case as the law envisages just compensation in the totality of the facts and circumstances. As a result of the aforesaid, the miscellaneous appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. (Dalip Singh),J. Ashok/