1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR, BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.4849/2008 Laxman & Ors. V/s Sugna Ram & Ors. Date of Judgment ::: 10th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Pankaj Gupta, for the appellants. By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The legal heirs of deceased Prem Devi who died in motor accident took place on 12.6.2004, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 14.12.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, in Claim Case No.390/2005, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,43,400/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 8.7.2004 upto the date of payment, in their favour. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the income of the deceased 2 properly. It is contended that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/- whereas the learned Tribunal assessed it as Rs.2400/- per month only. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified and the amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the impugned award in the light of his submission. AW 1 Laxman, son of deceased, has stated that his mother was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as she was a labourer. AW 2 Gulab Chand also stated that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/- per month. However, in the cross examination, the applicants' witnesses admitted that the deceased was illiterate and was the labourer and the rate of lady labourer at the relevant time, was Rs.70/- to Rs.80/- per day. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal assessed the daily income of the deceased as Rs.80/- per day i.e. Rs.2400/-p.m. or Rs.28,800/- per annum. So far as the finding of the Tribunal in respect of age of the deceased and multiplier adopted in the present case are concerned, the same have not been challenged by learned counsel for the appellant. 3 After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the finding of the learned Tribunal, I find that the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of the assessment of income of the deceased is based on cross examination of applicants' witnesses and in these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard. It is relevant to mention that the age of claimant No.1, Laxman is 20 years and he has already attained maturity at the age of 21 years. Therefore, he was entitled for compensation only for one year. The minimum age of the claimants in the present case is 7 years of Rekha and according to her age, the maximum multiplier which could have been adopted in the present case was only 15, as the age of the claimants or the deceased, whichever is lower, has to be taken into consideration while applying the multiplier, but instead of multiplier of 15, the learned Tribunal has already adopted the multiplier of 17 in the present case which is on higher side. The Tribunal is required to pass an award u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which appears to be just, fair and 4 reasonable. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the back ground of “just” compensation which is the pivotal consideration as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Divisional Controller, KSRTC v/s Mahadeo Shetty reported in (2003) (7) SCC 197. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount of compensation of Rs.3,43,400/- awarded in the present case is 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. Chauhan/