MISKAN MISKANBEE Vs. NARMADA BOREWELL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, none for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though served and Mr. Anil Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

(2.) WITH consent arguments heard. This appeal has been preferred for enhancement of compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T., Shajapur in Claim Case No. 103 of 2002.

(3.) IT is also not disputed before us that the deceased was a young man, who was around 26 years of age at the time of the accident, therefore, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18, which is applicable to the persons belonging to the age group of 25-30 years. The only contention urged before us by learned counsel for appellants is that the monthly income of the deceased was wrongly assessed at Rs. 2,000 by the Tribunal to work out the loss of future dependency of the appellants. Mr. Anil Goel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, submitted that in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Mr. Goel submitted that the award does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.