SBCMA NO.1541/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R Smt.Bhori Devi Vs. Ramavtar Choudhary S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.1541/2008. Date of order : 16/04/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri K.N. Tiwari for the appellant. ****** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed against the award of the MACT dated 5/1/2008 at the instance of the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- whereas according to the salary certificate produced by the claimant, the deceased was earning Rs.3400/- per month. The Tribunal has not added any amount for future prospects. Learned counsel submitted that age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of accident and according to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the learned Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 18 instead of 17 and accordingly, calculated the income. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-order, I find that the Tribunal examined the evidence of the claimant as well SBCMA NO.1541/08. 2 as the non-claimants and particularly Exh.11 and 12, salary certificates which indicated that deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1200/- per month doing the job at Laxmi Dairy Farm and another Rs.2200/- from Doodh Mishthan Bhandar. Owner of Doodh Mishthan Bhandar, Sunil was also examined and his statement was recorded as AW-4. At the same time, the Tribunal found that the relevant vouchers under which salary was paid to the deceased have not been produced. Even then, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. Relevant entry in the Second Schedule of the Act provides for the age of 20 years but not exceeding 25 years the multiplier of 17. In the present case, age of the deceased was 25 years and, therefore, adoption of the multiplier of 17 cannot be said to be unjustified. I therefore do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-