JUDGMENT
V.M. Jain, J.
1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, and the Cross Objections, filed by claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 6, against the award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby Rs. 5,85,500/- had been awarded as compensation to the claimants, on account of the death of Ravinder Kumar, deceased, in a motor vehicular accident.
2. While awarding compensation to the claimants, the learned Tribunal had held the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.
3. In the present appeal, filed by the Insurance Company, it has been submitted before us by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the Insurance Company had filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking permission to raise all the points which were available to the insured and that after contest, the said application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal and the award was passed in favour of the claimants and against the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. It has been submitted that if the appellant-Insurance Company is allowed to take up the defenses, the appellant-Insurance Company, shall challenge the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants, for the death of Ravinder Kumar, deceased.
4. The appellant-Insurance Company has placed on the record certified copy of the order dated 11.3.2003, passed by the Tribunal, vide which application under Section 170 of the aforesaid Act, filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, was dismissed by the tribunal. A perusal thereof would show that the learned Tribunal had noticed that the Insurance Company had not raised the plea of collusion in the written statement and that the present application under Section 170 of the aforesaid Act was filed after the claimants had closed their evidence. It was found that the said application was, thus, filed merely as a formality. It was also noticed that it had not been pointed out as to what was the basis for inference of collusion between the claimants and the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Lastly, it was noticed that the said application was filed after the claimants had closed their evidence, when there was no scope of collusion. Accordingly, the application was dismissed and after hearing arguments in the main petition, the claim petition was allowed. In our opinion, no fault can be found with this order of the Tribunal while dismissing the application under Section 170 of the aforesaid Act.
5. Once the application filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 170 of the aforesaid Act, was dismissed by the Tribunal and we find no illegality in the order, passed by the Tribunal dismissing the said application, in our opinion, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be allowed to raise the question of quantum in the present appeal. Even if the appellant-Insurance Company is allowed to challenge the findings of the Tribunal on the question of quantum, still in our opinion, it could not be said that the amount of Rs. 5,85,500/-, awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the claimants, for the death of Ravinder Kumar, deceased, was on the higher side. The claimants had given the age of the deceased as 32 years in the claim petition whereas as per postmortem report, copy Annexure P-1, his age was given as 39 years. The Tribunal, thus, took the age of the deceased as 39 years and applied the multiplier of 16. Furthermore, it was found that the deceased was a fruit seller and his income was taken as Rs. 4,000/-per month and the dependency of the claimants upon the deceased was taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum and the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and compensation was assessed as Rs. 5.76 lakhs, besides Rs. 2,000/- as funeral charges, Rs. 2,500/- as loss to the estate and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium, total amounting to Rs. 5,85,500/-. In our opinion, the aforesaid amount of compensation, assessed by the Tribunal, could not be said to be on the higher side.
6. So far as the cross objections, filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation we concerned, in our opinion, nothing has come on the record to show that the amount of Rs. 5,85,500/-, awarded by the Tribunal as the total amount of compensation, was on the lower side. In our opinion, in the absence of any material on the record, the learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month and had rightly assessed the dependency of the claimants upon the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per mouth and no fault could be found with the same. Furthermore, keeping in view the age mentioned in the post-mortem report, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier of 16 in this case. As such, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation in the present case.
7. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeal as well as in the cross objections, the same are hereby dismissed.