-1- C.M.A. No.831/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.831 of 2006. Mangla son of Shri Prabhati Lal and Another V E R S U S Vishwanath Meena son of Shri Manna Lal Meena & Others Date of Judgment :::: 16/08/2010 Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalip Singh Shir Vinay Mathur, on behalf of Shri V.V. Harit, Counsel for the appellants Shri Raaj Pal Choudhary, counsel for the respondent No.3, United India Insurance-company *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) Kotputli, District Jaipur dated 17.11.2005 in claim case No.4/05 (178/03). Submission of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants is that the deceased was held to be aged 22-years and was an unmarried person, as such the claim was filed by the parents, who were 45-50 years of age. He, therefore, submits that the learned Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier of 8 only as against either 15 or 13 applicable to the age group of 40-45 and 50-55 years. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and I have gone through the award passed by the learned Tribunal and the findings given by the learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No.3. -2- C.M.A. No.831/2006 The learned Tribunal has taken into account the documentary evidence and after appreciating the same has come to the conclusion that the elder brother of the deceased was, as per the F.I.R. and the record of the Police taken in the investigation of the case, to be 43 years of age. In that view of the matter, the age of the parents would certainly not be 45-50 as was stated before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has assessed the age of the parents between 55-60 years. It may also be stated here that the father of the deceased, who was the claimant died during the pendency of the claim petition itself. In the facts and circumstances, the multiplier of 8, which has been adopted for the age group of 55-60 cannot be said to be erroneous so as to call for any interference in this appeal. There is no merit in this miscellaneous appeal. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal fails and is dismissed summarily. (Dalip Singh),J. Ashok/