1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4947/2008 {Bhavani Singh & Another Versus Smt. Gurmeet Kaur & Another} Date of Order :: 8th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal for the appellants BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of their son Shailendra Singh, who died in motor accident occurred on 2nd June, 2005 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 15th July, 2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in claim application no. 955/2006, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,09,900/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 2nd October, 2005 in their favour. 3. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellants are two fold. First is that the 2 learned Tribunal committed an illegality in applying the multiplier of 14 on the basis of age of the parents, whereas the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied on the basis of the age of the deceased. The second submission is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in awarding the rate of interest @ 6% per annum only, whereas it should have been @ 9% per annum. He, therefore, contended that amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced accordingly. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in the light of finding of the learned Tribunal relating to quantum of compensation. 5. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried. He was 22 years of age. As per statement of AW-1-Bhawani Singh, the income of deceased was assessed as Rs. 3300/- per month inspite of the fact that there was no documentary evidence in support of the monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3300/- i.e. annual income as Rs. 39,600/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it, the dependency amount comes to Rs. 26,400/- and after applying the multiplier of 14 on the 3 basis of age of the parents, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,69,600/- towards loss of income. 6. So far as first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants about multiplier to be adopted in the present case is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it is well settled proposition of law that where claimants are parents, then their age is relevant for the purpose of adopting the multiplier and not the age of the deceased. Admittedly the deceased was unmarried. The father was 46 years of age and mother was 43 years of age. The multiplier of 13 for the age of 46 and multiplier of 15 for the age of 43 is provided in the Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company Versus Shanti Pathak (2007 ACJ 2188) has held that where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the choice of multiplier would depend upon the age of the claimants and not the age of the deceased, therefore, there is no force in the first submission of the learned counsel for the 4 appellants. 7. So far as second submission about rate of interest is concerned, I find that learned Tribunal was justified in awarding the rate of interest as 6% per annum and I do not find any illegality in it. Even otherwise, I find that looking to the age of deceased, particularly that he was unmarried and there was no documentary evidence to establish his monthly income, I find that amount of Rs. 4,09,900/- awarded in the present case cannot be said to be an inadequate amount. The amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 8. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 5