1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 918/2008 {Shivraj @ Syoram & Another Versus Brijendra Singh & Others} Date of Order :: 10th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Anirudh Singh for Mr. Virendra Agrawal for the appellants Mr. Rajendra Kumar Salecha for the respondents BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as on merits of the appeal also. 2. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, I am satisfied that appellants have made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of three days in filing the appeal. Hence the delay of three days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. 3. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of death of their son 2 Kalu Ram, who died in motor accident took place on 6th May, 2007 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 25th October, 2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,18,200/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 2nd June, 2007 till the date of payment in their favour. 3. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellants are two fold. One is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not applying the multiplier of 13 in place or 11 looking to the age of parents. The second submission is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in not assessing the monthly income of the deceased properly. It is contended that as per statement of AW-1 Shiv Raj, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 8,000/-, whereas the Tribunal assessed it as Rs. 2400/- only, therefore, the award of Tribunal may be modified and amount of compensation may be enhanced accordingly. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and contended that amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 3 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned award in the light of submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. The Tribunal while considering the issue no.2 relating to quantum of compensation has considered that AW-1 Shiv Raj, father of the deceased, in his statement admitted that at the time of his marriage, he was 25 to 26 years of age and his marriage took place about 25 to 26 years ago. The Tribunal recorded a finding that his age was more than 50 years and as per Second Schedule appended with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 11 is applicable where the age of victim is above 50 years but not exceeding 55 years. It is a settled law that where the claimants are parents, then the multiplier has to be applied as per age of the parents and not as per age of the victim. In these circumstances, I find that the finding of learned Tribunal with regard to age of father of the deceased is based on statement of his father himself and and I do not find any illegality in it. Looking to the age of father of the deceased the multiplier of 11 has rightly been applied by the Tribunal. 6. So far as monthly income of the 4 deceased is concerned, AW-1 Shiv Raj-father of the deceased stated that monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 8000/- but he did not file any documentary evidence or the accounts books in support of it. Admittedly the deceased was 17 to 18 years of age and he was unmarried also. In absence of any documentary evidence in support of the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income as Rs. 2400/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount out of it for personal expenses, assessed the dependency amount as Rs. 1600/- per month or Rs. 19,200/- per annum and after applying the multiplier, awarded Rs. 2,11,200/- towards loss of income. Rs. 5,000/- was further awarded for deprivation of love and affection and Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,18,200/-. The interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application has also been awarded. The learned Tribunal has observed that there is no documentary evidence in support of statement of AW-1 about monthly income of the deceased, and, in my view, the Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the monthly income as Rs. 2400/- and I do not find any illegality in it. 5 7. Apart-from above, it is also relevant to mention that Tribunal is required to pass an award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which appears to be just, fair and reasonable. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC Versus Mahadeva Shetty and Another {(2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 197} has held that every mode or method adopted for assessing the compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation, which is the pivotal consideration. 9. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that amount of compensation awarded in the present case for death of Kalu aged about 18 years, who was unmarried boy, appears to be just, fair and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 10. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK