JUDGMENT Yatindra Singh, J.
1. Sri Rajiv Garg was son of Smt. Kanak and Sri Rajeshwar Garg and brother of Km. Shalini. He was going on a scooter when he met with an accident on 14th May, 1998 at about 6.30 p.m. with a truck. He died. Subsequently his parents and his sister filed a claim petition. This has been partly allowed by the judgment dated 1st November, 1999 and the Court below awarded compensation of Rs. 3,62,000/- to the claimant, hence appeal No. 228 of 2000 was filed by the claimants and appeal No. 44 of 2000 was filed by the Insurance Company.
2. We have heard Sri Raghvendra Dwivedi, Counsel for claimants, Sri Madhav Jain owner of the truck and Sri Amresh Sinha, Counsel for the Insurance Company. No permission was given to Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and there is no statutory violation. Their appeal is only against the quantum of compensation. In view of Supreme Court decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi , the appeal filed by Insurance Company has no merit and it is hereby rejected.
3. So far as the appeal of claimant is concerned the deceased was doing training of Chartered Accountant. He had passed his Chartered Accountancy but there was no evidence that had passed his final examination of Chartered Accountancy. The deceased was not an income-tax payee. The Court below has recorded a finding that deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and further held that out of this Rs. 2,000/- would be given to his parents and after applying multiplier of 15 the Court below has granted compensation to the claimants. In view of the fact that deceased was not paying income-tax, the finding recorded by the Court below that he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month is reasonable. The other finding recorded by the Court below that out of this he must be spending 1/3rd on himself and 2/3rd towards his parent. This is valid and reasonable and no interference is called for. There is no illegality in the order. The appeal filed by claimant has also no merit. It is hereby rejected.
4. F.A.F.O. No. 228 of 2000 and F.A.F.O. No. 44 of 2000 are rejected. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of F.A.F.O. No. 44 of 2000.