IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.233 of 2008. Date of decision: 19.06.2008. National Insurance Company Ltd. ….Appellant Versus Joginder Pal & Others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at Dharamshala passed in a Petition Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’), filed by the widow, sons and daughters of the deceased who died on 16.9.2001 in an accident caused by a Jeep. The undisputed facts regarding the occurrence of the accident are not disputed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has challenged the quantum of income which has been assessed by the learned trial Court at 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 the datum figure at Rs.2,400/- per month and submits that the multiplier applied is also not in consonance with law. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel and have also gone through the award. The learned Tribunal has rightly assessed that the deceased was carrying on agricultural pursuits by which he was earning at least about Rs.2,400/- per month. Even otherwise this sum is a pittance in the present circumstances, which, in any event, required to be increased. It is now common knowledge that even a daily paid labourer is taking Rs.150/- per day. I do not find anything illegal in the Tribunal applying a multiplier of 10. In case the multiplier is reduced, the earning of the deceased would have to be increased which would practically leads to same result as the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has arrived at. In these circumstances, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. June 19, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.