JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Award dated 4.5.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu (for short the learned Tribunal ) in Claim petition No. 65/69, whereby the appellant company and the respondents No. 6 and 7 have been held liable to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 4,52,000/- + Rs. 70,000/- to the respondents No. 1 to 5 along-with interest thereon @12% p.a. from the date of institution of the claim petition (i.e. on 24.2.1999) till the date of payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Mohar Singh along-with his son Anand Kumar and daughter Kumari Manju were travelling in a Maruti car bearing No.HR-3/9831on 5.7.1998 from Baga to Jhunjhunu. The said Maruti car was being driven by one Rajesh Kumar when at around 10:00 AM, the said Maruti car collided with a bus coming from opposite direction bearing No. RJ-18/P- 0678. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the driver of the Maruti car, Rajesh Kumar and the passenger Mohar Singh died, passengers Anand Kumar and Kumari Manju sustained injuries. 3. An FIR to the effect was lodged and thereafter, the claimants filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The instant Misc. Appeal relates to claim petition No. 65/1999. 4. Thereafter, the notices were issued to the non-claimants. Reply was filed. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The learned Tribunal after hearing, framed the issues. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment/award. Hence, this Misc. Appeal before Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal is far in excess of a just and reasonable compensation. The learned Tribunal has wrongly assumed that the claimants sustained a monthly loss of dependency of Rs. 2000/- on account of the death of the deceased Rajesh Kumar. The loss of dependency as drawn by the learned Tribunal is neither based on any evidence before it nor is substianted by any such evidence. There was no cogent and/or categorical evidence on record of the learned Tribunal as to why income being earned by the deceased. The learned Tribunal erred by failing to deduct the customary ⅓rd amount in lieu of the deceased s self expense from the monthly loss of income of Rs. 2,000/-. There was no cogent and/or categorical evidence on record of the learned Tribunal as to why income being earned by the deceased. The learned Tribunal erred by failing to deduct the customary ⅓rd amount in lieu of the deceased s self expense from the monthly loss of income of Rs. 2,000/-. The multiplier of 18 as applied by the learned Tribunal is far in excess of a just and reasonable multiplier. 6. Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents claimants submits that deceased Rajesh Kumar was married at the time of accident and the age of his wife was only 20 years. 7. He has drawn attention of the Court to the case of Punam Devi v. Divisional Manager (2004) 3 SCC 386 : ( AIR 2004 SC 1742 ). 8. He submits that at the time of alleged accident the age of the deceased s father and mother were 48 and 45 years respectively and age of Rajesh Kumar was 16 years and the Rajeev Kumar was 14 years, and they are their brothers and successors. As per the post- mortem report the age of deceased at the relevant time was 25 years and he was a student of Second Year. He submits that the deceased used to help his father in the transport business and in that he used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month. The Maruti car was in his name. As per Ex.15, 16 and 17, the deceased spent Rs. 70,000/- in the aforesaid Maruti car for re-shaping. Para 17 of the impugned award is relevant which runs as under:(Vernacular matter omitted ...Ed.) 9. Ultimately, he has requested to the Court that although the claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of the award but on the basis of oral request, the amount of award be enhanced. 10. In the result, the Misc. Appeal filed by the appellants is devoid of merits and stands dismissed and the judgment dated 4.5.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu in Claim Petition No. 65/99 is confirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******