S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.75/2007. (Smt. Samad Kanwar Vs. Jamal Khan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 9th January 2007. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. M.L. Khatri, for the appellant. …. By way of this appeal, the claimant-appellant seeks enhancement over the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of accidental death of her son Shrawan Singh, about 22 years in age. In its impugned award dated 24.11.2005, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer for the purpose quantification of compensation has noticed the submissions of the claimant about the deceased earning Rs.3,000/- per month as conductor on a bus; and for want of any cogent evidence on record, has taken his monthly income at Rs.2,700/- and deducting one-third wherefrom and with application of multiplier of 15 in view of the age of the mother-claimant at about 45 years, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.3,24,000/- and allowing Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,26,000/-. The Tribunal has allowed interest @ 6% per annum after adjustment of the amount of Rs.50,000/-, if received under interim award. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned award, this Court is clearly of opinion that the amount allowed by the Tribunal under the impugned award cannot be said to be falling short of just compensation and this appeal for enhancement deserves to be dismissed. 1 The amount awarded by the Tribunal in the sum of Rs.3,26,000/-, taking entire of two-third of the estimated income of the deceased for the purpose of loss of contribution to the mother of the deceased, definitely stands on higher side. The deceased being an unmarried person, looking to the future certainties and uncertainties, the chances of his getting married in future and larger part of his income getting diverted to his own family cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances of the case, not more than one-half of the estimated income of the deceased could have been taken towards pecuniary loss for the mother. Then, application of multiplier of 15, in view of the age of the mother at about 45 years, is also on the maximum. In this view of the matter, the assessment of pecuniary loss itself has been much in excess of the reasonable amount admissible in this case. Though the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards non-pecuniary loss; however, when viewed in the context of the other error by the Tribunal in awarding higher amount on pecuniary loss for the mother of the victim, this court is clearly of opinion that the award made by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant rules out any scope of enhancement. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/ 2