IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.350 of 2007 1. PUSHPA DEVI, W/o Late Gupta Nath Jaiswal. 2. Muni Kumari (Minor) D/o Late Guput Nath Jaiswal @ Late Gupta Nath Jaiswal, through and under the Guardianship of Pushpa Devi mother and next friend. Both R/o Village-Matiyari, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). .................. (Petitioner)............. Appellants. Versus 1. SHRI RAMAKANT SINGH, S/o Shri Ram Khelawan Singh, R/o Maharani Road, Gaya, District-Gaya (Bihar). (Owner of the vehicle Truck no. BR 25G/0462 ........................... Opposite Party no. . 2. United India Insurance Company Limited Jhumari Tilaiya Branch. (Insurer of the Vehicle Truck no. BR 25G/0462) .......................... Opposite Party no. 2........... Respondents. ----------- 6 15/5/2009 Heard. The only question pressed in this appeal in respect of the impugned award is amount of compensation. The appellants have claimed that the age of the deceased was 26 years and as such the multiplier of 18 was to be applicable which in turn could have led to higher amount of compensation. This Court would find from the detailed discussions in the impugned award that the Tribunal had assessed the age of the deceased as 25 years on the basis determination made by the doctor conducting postmortem report. The appellants, however, by annexing a document, namely, admit card of the deceased before this Court, have sought to canvass that the age of the deceased was 26 years on the date of accident. Apparently, when such document, namely, the admit card (Annexure-1) was not produced before the Tribunal and the medico legal evidence by way of determination of age was 2 available on record, the same had to be relied by the Tribunal, This Court would therefore find no reason to interfere with the finding of fact on the question of age. Since the age of deceased in view of his postmortem report was determined as 25 years, the multiplier as per Schedule-II of the M.V.Act had to be 17. Therefore, this Court must hold that the question of age or multiplier as decided by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and consequently there would be no scope for variation/enhancement in the amount of compensation fixed and allowed by the Tribunal. Counsel for the respondent-Company also informs this Court that the amount of compensation in terms of the award of the tribunal has already been paid to the Appellants. Be that it may, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)