S.P. Srivastava and M.P. Singh, JJ.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-owner and Mr. Ram Singh, learned Counsel for the claimants-respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of the offending motor vehicle who was also the employer of the deceased who had met his untimely death in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle-a Road-Roller.
3. The Tribunal on a careful consideration of the evidence and material on record, had come to the conclusion that the deceased who was employed as a 'Meth' was crushed to death by a Road-Roller at the time of the accident which had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Road-Roller.
4. Believing the deposition of the wife of the deceased, his income was held to be Rs. 1,500/- per month. It may be noticed that the present appellant-the employer without any justifiable reason had withheld the best evidence about the actual income of the deceased and did not produce the relevant muster-roll which could indicate the amount which was paid to the deceased towards his salary, etc. The Tribunal, therefore, could not be held to have committed an error in believing the deposition of the wife of the deceased on the question relating to the income of the deceased.
5. Holding the extent of annual dependency to be Rs. 12,000/- per annum and the age of the deceased at the time of accident to be 40 years, the Tribunal had utilized the multiplier of 15 for determining the amount of compensation at a figure of Rs. 1,82,000/- as just compensation to which the dependants of the deceased were found entitled.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings of the Tribunal returned in favour of the claimant but has not been able to demonstrate that the findings can be taken to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify an interference therein.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as brought on record, no justifiable ground has been made out for any interference in the impugned award. Further the quantum of compensation cannot be held to be unjust.
8. This appeal is totally devoid of merits, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine.
9. As prayed, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in this Court by the insurer-appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned so that it may be disbursed to the claimant.