1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.102/2007 (Smt.Rajkumari & Ors. Vs. Shanti Lal & Ors.) Date :: 17th January 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Ravindra Paliwal for Mr.Harish Purohit, for the appellants. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the impugned award dated 08.12.2005, this Court is satisfied that this appeal for enhancement over the award of compensation made by the Tribunal does not merit admission. For quantification of compensation on account of accidental death of Shankar Lal, about 46 years in age, and said to be earning as an artisan, the Tribunal has taken note of the assertion on the income of the deceased including testimony of AW-3 Sunil Choudhary and the salary certificate Exhibit-19 stating the salary income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per month; but for want of any cogent corroborative evidence on record, has estimated his income at Rs.3,000/- per month as a skilled craftsman. With reference to the age of the deceased at 46 years, the Tribunal has proceeded to apply multiplier of 13 and with deduction of 1/3 on the personal 2 expenditure of the deceased, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.3,12,000/-. The Tribunal has further added Rs.20,000/- towards the component of future enhancement of income; has further allowed Rs.30,000/- to the claimants towards loss of love and affection and another Rs.15,000/- to the wife of the deceased towards mental agony; and has also allowed Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,000/- towards transportation and Rs.5,000/- towards treatment expenditure on the basis of bills produced for six days of hospitalization of the victim after the incident. In this manner, the Tribunal has proceeded to assess the loss of the claimants at Rs.3,85,000/- and has made the award of compensation of this amount in favour of the claimants and has allowed interest @ 6% per annum after adjustment of the amount of Rs.50,000/- received under no fault liability. The award so made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be grossly inadequate so as to warrant any interference in appeal. True it is that the Tribunal has put estimate on the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month only; but then, there is no such cogent evidence available on record for which any higher estimate could be put on the income. The salary certificate Exhibit-19 could hardly be taken in proof of the earnings of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per month 3 particularly when not corroborated by the accounts of the business concern said to be making payment of such salary. The Tribunal has applied maximum side multiplier of 13 as admissible in this case. The assessment of pecuniary loss at Rs.3,12,000/- cannot be said to be too low or unjustified. Then, the Tribunal has added another amount of Rs.20,000/- towards enhanced income thus allowing total Rs.3,32,000/- towards pecuniary loss. The Tribunal has also allowed reasonable amount towards funeral, transportation and treatment. Moreover the Tribunal has allowed Rs.35,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss. In the ultimate analysis, the award of compensation made by the Tribunal in the sum of Rs.3,85,000/-, though moderate, cannot be said to be unjustified or grossly inadequate and there appears no scope for upward revision. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. [DINESH MAHESHWARI],J. MK