1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.1740/2005 arising out of Claim No.1837/2001 RADHEY SHYAM V/s SATYA NARAIN & OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: MAY 05, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri Sandeep Mathur, for appellant. Shri Sandeep Jain, for respondents. Shri D.S. Rathore, for United India Insurance Copany Limited. BY THE COURT : (Oral) 1. This appeal has come up for admission. Both the parties agreed to dispose of the case at admisison stage. 2. Heard. 3. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the appellants for enhancement of compensation against the award dated March 19, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, (for short “the Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2 4. On March 23, 2000 around 7.30 P.M., deceased and injured were going in tractor RJ-08 R 3332. The tractor was dashed by truck RJ-06 G 0856. The offending truck was being driven by respondent Satyanarain. In the accident Parma Ram, Mahendra, Jagdish, Mst. Bhoori, Mst. Dholi, Mst. Gulab and Mst. Gheesi died and Sanjay @ Santu, Ramratan, Chhotu Lal, Mst. Bhoori, Ramesh, Bajrang Lal, Mst. Kajodi, Raju Lal, Ramkaran, Bhanwar Lal S/o Chhotu Keer and Bhanwar Lal S/o Ramdeo Raigor received serious and simple injuries. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation on lower side. The deceased Mst. Gulab was of 60 years of age, the appellant is son of deceased Mst. Gulab who is also major. 6. Per contra, Shri D.S. Rathore learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company Limited and Shri Sandeep Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the award of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter and after recording evidence of both the sides during enquiry, rightly arrived at the conclusion and calls 3 for no interference. 7. In view of the rival contentions and on perusal of the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that deceased Mst. Gulab was found to be 60 years of age and her son is major and does not appear to be a depended on her and as such the amount of compensation awarded is not required to be enhanced. 8. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. (Guman Singh), J. chauhan/