JUDGMENT 1. - The instant restoration application has been filed by the applicant/appellant Insurance Company seeking restoration of the S.B. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 202/2012, which was rejected by the learned Dy. Registrar (Judl.), Rajasthan High Court, jodhpur on 21.4.2014 in pursuance of the peremptory order dated 20.3.2014 passed by this Court. The earlier restoration application had been preferred for restoration of the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3387/2011 (D) filed by the appellant after a delay of 43 days. The appeal was dismissed on account of the non-compliance of the peremptory order passed by this Court on 26.5.201 1. 2. I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri Sanjeev Johari, learned Counsel for the appellant on the application for restoration of the restoration application as well as on the merits. 3. Upon having examined the impugned award on merits, it is evident that the Tribunal has duly considered the material available on record and awarded just compensation to the claimants. The award has been challenged principally on the following grounds 1. The Tribunal wrongly applied the rise in income by' future prospects while calculating the compensation. 2. The multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal is excessive. 3. One of the claimants had been granted compassionate ground appointment upon the death of Ajay Vyas and thus, the claim should have been reduced accordingly. 4. I have considered the said submissions and find that there is no force in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The deceased was a Government servant being employed in the Railway Department. His monthly salary as per record was found to be Rs. 14,107 per month. 50% addition was made to the salary and rightly so on account of rise in income by future prospects. l/4lh deduction was made from the income of the deceased towards personal needs, which is also justified. The multiplier of 15 was as a matter of fact wrongly applied by the Tribunal favouring the appellant Insurance Company. As the deceased was 35 years of age, the appropriate multiplier to be applied would be 16 in light of the table propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in- AIR 2009 SC 3104 . As the deceased was 35 years of age, the appropriate multiplier to be applied would be 16 in light of the table propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in- AIR 2009 SC 3104 . Merely because one of the claimants had been awarded compassionate appointment, that could not be a ground to reduce the claim as has been held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors. reported in 2013 ACJ 1441 . The restoration application which was moved by the applicant for restoring the appeal, which had been dismissed in default, was rightly rejected because the appellant failed to comply with the peremptory order passed by this Court on 20.2.2011. The grounds taken in the instant restoration application do not convince this Court so as to restore the restoration application or the appeal.Thus, the restoration application as well as appeal are dismissed as being devoid of merit.Application dismissed. *******