1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4422/2008 {Smt. Muniya Versus Sumer Singh & Others} Date of Order :: 12th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sudhir Kumar Tewari for the appellant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by her in motor accident which took place on 27th October, 2006 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 30th June, 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,56,301/- in her favour with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 8th December, 2006 till the date of realization. 3. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the income of the appellant @ Rs. 5000/- per month, 2 as pleaded in the claim application, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal to that extent may be set-aside and amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned award particularly the finding on issue no.2 relating to quantum of compensation. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant frankly admitted that no documentary evidence was placed on record showing the income of the appellant @ Rs. 5000/- per month. AW-1 Muniya in her statement stated that she was earning Rs. 5000/- by way of tuition and sell of milk in village, but she has not produced any documentary evidence in support of her statement. No other cogent evidence in this regard as to whom she was teaching and when and where she was selling the milk, was placed on record. No independent witness has been examined to corroborate her testimony. In absence of documentary evidence to that effect, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed her income of Rs. 100/- per day being minimum wage and in view of her age of 22 years, applied the multiplier of 17. The appellant sustained 18.1% permanent disability 3 as per Ex. 42 and accordingly, awarded Rs. 1,10,772/- towards the loss of income. The amount incurred in medicines has also been allowed as per bills Ex. 14 to Ex. 41. Thus, total compensation of Rs. 1,56,301/- has been awarded. The Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which appears to be just and reasonable. 5. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 6. In view of above there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK