// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4831/2008 Ramswaroop Son of Shri Jagannath Kulchania & Another Versus Gulam Mohammad Khan and Others Date of Order ::: 01.12.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Sudhir Kumar Tewari, Counsel for appellants #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of their son Ramaotar, who died in motor-accident took place on 3rd December, 2000 and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 15th September, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal And Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Claim Application No.197/2005 (44/2001), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees two lac twenty-five thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim application i.e. 29th January, 2001 till the date of realization, in their favour. // 2 // The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the present case is inadequate. He further submits that the compensation should have been awarded under different heads. However, he does not dispute that the deceased was a non-earning member and was 11 years of age at the time of accident. The learned counsel could not point out as to under which head the amount of compensation should have been awarded separately under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the light of the findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to the Issue No.4 relating to quantum of compensation wherein the Tribunal has observed that admittedly the deceased was 11 years of age and as per the settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- is just and reasonable amount of compensation and consequently the Tribunal awarded the same with interest from the date of the claim application. It is relevant to mention that even as per the Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, the notional annual income of the non-earning member can be assessed as Rs.15,000/- and multiplier of 15 is // 3 // applicable on the death of the victim below 15 years of age. According to this formula, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,25,000/- without deducting 1/3rd amount for personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Act of 1988, which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Devi and another Vs. Musafir Paswan and another {2005(1) TAC 609}, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- where the deceased was 13 years of age. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme as well as this court. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount of compensation with interest awarded by the Tribunal in the present case cannot be said to be inadequate and the same appears to be just, fair and reasonable, and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//