SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellants seek to assail the order dated November 23, 2005 of the learned Single Judge, whereby the Civil Misc. Appeal preferred by the appellants against the order dated April 1, 2005 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Addl. District and Session Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, was dismissed.
(2.) CONTRACTUAL facts depict that a sum of Rs. 4,58,000/- was awarded to the claimant-respondent Sushila Devi on account of death of her son aged 25 years. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the income of the deceased was only Rs. 3,000 p. m. and after using the multiplier of 17, the compensation was computed. Learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that since the age of the claimant respondent was 48 years, the multiplier of 13 or 14 ought to have been applied in view of ratio indicated in U. P. S. R. T. C. and others vs. Triok Chandra and others 2003 ACJ page 790. Having pondered over the submissions we find that the learned Single Judge did not see any error in the award of learned Tribunal on the ground that multiplier of 17 was applied as per the Schedule in view of the age of the deceased which was 25 on the date of accident. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas (1994 (1) TAC 343), Supreme Court, their Lordships of the Apex Court indicated that the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. We see no illegality in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge. The issue that awarded compensation was on higher side, cannot be considered in special appeal.
(3.) FOR these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed. .;