IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.315 of 2007 M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY through its Divisional Manager, Shanti Market, Charch Road, P.S. Civil Lines, District- Gaya(Insurer of Vehicle no. BR-2B-4715) …Opposite Party No.1/Appellant Versus 1. DOMNI DEVI wife of Sri Nagu Yadav, 2. Nagu Yadav son of Sudhan Yadav, Both resident of village- Barha, P.O.-Phulwaria, P.S.-Dumaria, District- Gaya …Claimants/ Respondents 3. Md. Adil Khan, son of Md. Nausay alias Naushewan Khan, Resident of village- Pokhraha, P.O.- Bekopur, District- Gaya at present C/o Md. Akbar Khan, Near Fahima School, Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh (Owner of vehicle No.BR-2B-4715) …Opposite party No.2/Respondent ----------- 11/ 25.02.2011 Heard the parties. The appellant is aggrieved with the judgment and award dated 15.03.2007 and 30.03.2007 respectively passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gaya, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 26 of 2006/ 70 of 2002, by which the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,000/- with interest @ 8.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the application till its payment. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, in fact, the owner of the offending vehicle had two vehicles; one was numbered as BR-2B-4715 and another was numbered as BR-23- 4715 and vehicle no. BR-23-4715 was insured with the appellant and it was vehicle bearing BR-2B-4715 which had met with the accident and, as such, the appellant is not liable to compensate the claimants. Further submission is that the claimant no.1, who is the mother of the deceased, has only been estimated to be 42 years of age without due enquiry about her age and, so, multiplier of 15 in 2 her regard is excessive. On going through the judgment and the documents filed herein, no doubt, there appears to be a review petition which had been filed on behalf of the appellant stating about the number of insured vehicle which was at variance with the offending vehicle, but I find that this issue was not raised before the Tribunal at all. In fact, to the contrary, I find that Ext.-3 was proved on their behalf which specifically states that the vehicle bearing No. BR-2B-4715 was insured with the appellant which was the offending vehicle. In view of such, this plea has to be rejected. Further, I find that there is nothing to disbelieve that the claimant no.1, who is the mother of the deceased, was not aged about 42 years of age being the mother of 18 years old son. Therefore, no wrong has been committed by the Tribunal with regard to amount of compensation. On both these counts, I find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The statutory amount deposited in this court shall be remitted to the court below for immediate disbursement to the claimants. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)