RAFIQ, J.—For stated reasons, delay in filing appeal is condoned. Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act stands allowed. Appeal is heard on merits.

2. This appeal has been preferred by National Insurance Company Limited against award dated 19.11.2011 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.998/2007. Learned Tribunal by aforesaid award, has allowed claim petition filed by claimants awarding compensation of Rs.5,98,000/- in a death case.

3. Smt. Manju Jain, learned counsel for appellant, submitted that award is excessive and suffered from various illegalities and, therefore, appeal should be admitted and allowed suitably reducing the quantum of compensation.

4. It is contended that at relevant point of time deceased was 29 years of age and, therefore, as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), multiplier of 17 should have been adopted rather than 18 adopted by learned Tribunal.

5. Second contention is that there was no definite proof that deceased was working as electrician and, therefore, his monthly income cannot be determined at Rs.3,510/- and, in doing so, learned Tribunal committed illegality by relying on minimum wages meant for skilled labour in the year 2011, which is Rs.135/- per day.

6. Thirdly, learned counsel argued that it was for the deceased to take extra care while crossing the road and evidence shows that accident took place near iron divider while crossing the road at Transport Nagar Circle in front of PWD office and since speeding vehicle was coming on the road and the accident has taken place thereby, it proves that deceased was not careful enough while crossing the road.

7. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for appellant in the light of discussions made by learned Tribunal in impugned award and findings recorded on various issues therein. Learned Tribunal, on issue no.4, has discussed the evidence of AW-1 Vimla Sharma, widow of deceased, and also AW-3 Krishna Kumar Yadav, a constable in traffic police posted at Transport Nagar crossing at the time of accident. The said constable proved that deceased was crossing the road from Jawahar Nagar side towards PWD office and a truck coming from Galta Gate side on Delhi road, being driven by driver in rash and negligent manner, hit him while turning towards Agra road and crushed his head from rear tyres. He followed the truck and intercepted it. AW-1, the wife has stated that her husband was an electrician and used to earn a sum of Rs.9000/- per month. AW-12 Anil Kumar Somani appeared in witness box and stated that deceased was lastly employed by him on monthly salary of Rs.6000/- and outstanding salary of three months was paid to his widow by an account payee cheque of Rs.18000/-. The employer has produced his PAN card, salary account and audit account of the firm but that evidence was not accepted in so far as quantum of salary was concerned, by learned Tribunal because the salary was said to be of a period when deceased was alive and paid to the widow but nevertheless learned Tribunal accepted the evidence to the extent that deceased was working as electrician and therefore treated him as a skilled labour and on that basis proceeded to compute his wages at the rate of Rs.135/- per day as per notification issued by the Government in the year 2011. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that it is an excessive because the minimum wage in the year 2007 when the accident took place, was far less than Rs.135/- per day and additionally factor of higher multiplier, which should have been 17 but the learned Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 18, which led to substantially increase in amount of compensation.

8. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No.3723 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.24489 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document