By^. y HIGHCQURTOi:CMHATTlSGARH:BLLASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip RaosahebDeshmukh, J. M.A.C.No.l 682 of 2008 Appellants Respondents "c dj 1. Sheetal Sahu, S/o Firuram Sahu, aged about52years 2. Minor Trilok Kumar, S/osheetal Sahu, Aged about 16 years, Through: Natural guardian father appellantNo.1. All R/o Village-ChureSa, P.S. & Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) Versus 1. P. Raja,S/o Palani Shami Sarli, aged about 27 years, R/o Pasapati Tirumalaipatti, P.S. Chama, District Nakkal (Tamifnadu) (Driver of offending vehicle Trailer No.NL.02-D-7281) 2. Smt M. Khama!, W/o Mattusyem, R/o House No.2514, Kraslal Ji Nagar, Lakhha Sandra Bangalore (Tamiinadu) (Qwner of offending vehicle Trailer NO.NL-2-D-7281) 3. InsuranceCompanyNationallnsurance Company Limited,| Registered Office-3 Mastna Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkatta, 700071; Through Branch Offjce-NatJonal tnsurance Company Limited Rajbandha Midan, G.E. Road, Raipur(CG) ; . :., 4. Smt Pan/ati, W/o Sheetal Sahu, aged about 50 years, R/o VilIage-Churela, P.S. & Tahsil Bhilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) IVJiscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 Present; Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, counsel forthe appeltants. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 06.01.2009) Heard on admission. (2) The appetlants/clajmantshave preferred thisappeal againstthe order dated 25.10.2008 by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (henceforth the Tribunai?) in claims case No.74^2006, whereby in a case of death of Yuvraj, aged 18 years, compensation of Rs.1,84,000/-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of apptication till realization v</as awarded to the parents/claimants aged 52 and50years. (3) The award passed by the Tribunat is assaiied by the learned counsei for the appetlant on two grounds. Firstiy,-that the Tribunai erred in not < -^. ^ accepting the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- despite there being ora! evidenceto showthat the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- from the work of electrical mechanic. Lastiy, it was urged that the multjplierll ought to have been appiied instead of multiptier 10 under the second schedute ifaverage age ofthe claimantswasto betaken into consideration. No other ground was urged.. i s; (4) During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appeilants did not dispute that despite opportunity being given by the Tribunal, the claimants did not produce before the Tribunal the register of accounts ofthe earnings ofthe deceased. (5) Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, I have perused the impugned award. There was a positive assertion by the claimants that accounts oftheeamings ofthe deceased was maintained and would be produced before theTribunal. However, despite opportunity being granted, this was not done. Considering that the age of.the deceased was 18 years who had not taken any training in the work of electrical fitting, the Tribunal v</as wholiyjustified in taking themonthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/-. So far as the multipiier 10 applied by the Tribunal is considered, it is in conformity with the dictum oftheApex Court in Municipal Comoration ofGreater Bom&a^J^. V.SJ.axman/^er Another 2004 ACJ 53. (6) In my considered opinion, there is no merit in this appeal. which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admissior 1 Sd/- DiUp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya