IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.4965/2008 Shankar Singh & Ors. V/s Baljeet Singh Sindh Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 11th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri B.L. Dhakhad on behalf of Shri J.P. Gupta , for the appellants. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the appeal as well as merits of the appeal also. So far as the delay in filing the appeal is concerned, the same has been explained by the appellants in paras No. 3, 4 and 5 of the application which are reproduced as under : “3. That the judgment was passed on 17.12.2004 but since then appellants do not have the knowledge of legal proceedings and technicalities, therefore they could not file the appeal within the prescribed period period of limitation. 4. That one relative of the appellants who happened to be the legal practitioner, came at the house of the appellants and in conversation the appellant No.1 told him about the judgment then he advised the appellants to file appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 5. That thereafter the appellants made contact with the present counsel who immediately got dictated typed the appeal and filed the same.” The appellants are required to explain each day's delay in filing the appeal but the aforesaid facts show that the they have not explained the each day's delay in filing the appeal. After considering the submissions and the above explanation, it is clearly born out that the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by the appellants so as to condone the same. So far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, the appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of Smt. Phooli Devi who died in motor accident took place on 26.12.2001 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 7.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar, in Claim Case No. 234/2002 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 9.1.2002 upto the date of payment, in their favour. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the total amount of compensation awarded in the present case for death of Smt. Phooli Devi is a meager amount and the same is liable to be enhanced. He, particularly; argued that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of love & affection is not adequate, therefore, at least to that extent the amount of compensation may be enhanced. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal relating to quantum of compensation. Claimant Shankar Singh, in his statement, stated that his wife was earning Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month from the agricultural etc. but he has not produced any documentary evidence in respect of any agricultural income. However, looking to the fact that she must have been associated with her husband, the Tribunal assessed her monthly income as Rs.2,000/- i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd amount of it, assessed the dependency amount as Rs.16,000/- p.a. So far as the age of deceased and multiplier adopted in the present case are concerned, the same have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of income as per age of deceased after applying the multiplier of 15. The Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v/s Mahadeo Shetty reported in (2003)(7) SCC 197 has held that every mode or method adopted for assessment of compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” compensation which is pivotal consideration. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case, is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussions, the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and the appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. Chauhan/