- (1.) THE present appeal is directed against the Award dated 10.10.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ,Sikar, in Claim Case No. 255/2011, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,19,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization for the death of the deceased Dhanesh Kumar, who died in the vehicular accident in question.
(2.) IT has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. A.S. Shekhawat, for the appellants that the Tribunal has mis-appreciated the evidence as regards the age of the parents and the income of the deceased and awarded the compensation which is very less and, therefore, the same is required to be enhanced to an appropriate amount. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and from the impugned award, it transpires that the deceased Dhanesh Kumar, along with others was travelling in the ALTO CAR No. RJ 23 CA 1057 on 1.7.2009, and the said car dashed with the tree as a result thereof the said deceased Dhanesh Kumar along with two others expired. The appellants-claimants having made Claim Petition being No. 255/2011, in respect of the death of the deceased Dhanesh, the Tribunal has passed the Award as stated here-in-above. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has not properly considered the age of the parents and the income of the deceased. From the impugned Award, it clearly transpires that the Tribunal has considered the age of parents in between 45 to 50 as their other son was 30 years old. There is no infirmity in the said finding arrived at by the Tribunal. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the appellant-claimants, though had produced some salary certificate, the same were not certified or proved by them and, therefore, the Tribunal relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 150/- per day and awarded compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal being just and proper, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality, much less perversity in the impugned Award. The appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;