MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Public Works Department Division of Jaipur through the Executive Engineer against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dholpur which has awarded a sum of Rs. 3 lacs to the claimants-respondents who are the parents of the deceased-boy who died at the age of 20 years due to accident caused by the vehicle owned and possessed by the appellant-PWD Jaipur.
(2.) CHALLENGING the aforesaid award, it was contended by the counsel for the appellant that the State of Rajasthan was not impleaded as a party respondent before the Tribunal and merely an Executive Engineer Public Works Department Mechanical Division was impleaded as the respondent and therefore the Tribunal should not have proceeded to determine the award in absence of the necessary party which is the State of Rajasthan. I find no substance in this contention as it is no doubt true that the State of Rajasthan for the Public Works Department was a necessary party but the fact also remains that the State of Rajasthan in every case has to be represented through the concerned Department or the Officer with which the concerned Department is concerned. In the instant case, the vehicle which caused the accident was admittedly owned and possessed by the PWD of Jaipur and in that event if the Public Works Department was included as a necessary party through the Executive Engineer who also duly contested the matter on behalf of the Department before the Tribunal on all the grounds which were available to the Department, the plea that the proceedings suffered on account of non-joinder of necessary party is a plea which is fit to be rejected. Once the State was represented through the Executive Engineer of the PWD, the contention that the State was not included as a necessary party merely because it was not specifically represented in the name of the State, cannot be allowed to be urged specially when the proceeding was duly contested by the PWD through the Executive Engineer and an advocate had also appeared on his behalf. Hence the plea raised on this count is rejected. The counsel for the appellant then urged that the amount of Rs. 3 lacs awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dholpur is exorbitant and is fit to be reduced, but the plea of the appellant is without any substance in this regard also as the deceased was a boy of 20 years only and was claimed to have been earning Rs. 3,000/- per month but adequate evidence having been found insufficient on the point of income, the average annual income of the deceased-boy was assessed at Rs. 20,000/- per annum. This is clearly in consonance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and cannot be held to be suffering from any infirmity and thereafter if the appropriate multiplier has been applied to the income of the deceased considering his age at the time of his death or computing the amount of compensation, the award of Rs. 3 lacs cannot be held to be on the higher side so as to interfere with the same and reduce it. The appeal under the circumstance is not fit to be entertained. Consequently, it stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. .;