1 29 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.96/2007. (Hakariya & Ors. Vs. Sajjad Khan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 11th January 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. P.R. Mehta, for the appellants. For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the parents, wife and child of the vehicular accident victim Dhanna, about 22 years in age and said to be earning by preparing and selling earthen pots, the Tribunal has taken note of the averments of the claimants as made in the claim application about the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and the statement made by the father of the deceased about his monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has observed that there was no documentary or other corroborative evidence on record in support of such assertions made by the claimants about the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has put an estimate on the earnings of the deceased at Rs.70/- per day and thereby has taken his monthly income at Rs.2,100/-. However, in the circumstances of the case, instead of deducting one-third on personal expenditure of the deceased, the Tribunal has preferred to adopt unit system to assess pecuniary loss for the claimants at Rs.1,635/- per month. In view of the age of the deceased at 22 years, the Tribunal has applied maximum side multiplier of 17 to 2 assess pecuniary loss at Rs.3,33,540/-, rounded up to Rs.3,34,000/-. The Tribunal has further allowed Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss but then has summed up the total compensation at Rs.3,39,000/-. The Tribunal has also allowed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. By way of this appeal, the claimants seek enhancement over the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that the Tribunal has been in error in estimating the income of the deceased only at Rs.2,100/- per month and submitted that in view of the job and business the deceased was engaged in, the Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income minimum at Rs.5,000/-. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has been in error in not awarding any amount towards funeral expenses and in not awarding reasonable amount to the wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium. Learned counsel lastly contended that the Tribunal has been in serious error in summing up the total loss for the claimants at Rs.3,39,000/- even after observing that the claimants were entitled for compensation towards pecuniary loss in the sum of Rs.3,34,000/- and towards non-pecuniary loss at Rs.15,000/- and, therefore, the impugned award calls for interference. 3 Having examined the impugned award and having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, this Court is clearly of opinion that this appeal remains bereft of substance and deserves to be dismissed without being admitted. So far the assessment of monthly income of the deceased and the loss of contribution is concerned, in the absence of any cogent evidence on record, the estimate put by the Tribunal on the earning of the deceased at Rs.2,100/- per month cannot be said to be too low or insufficient. Moreover, the Tribunal has taken loss of contribution at Rs.1,635/- per month while applying the unit system. The four claimants are the parents, wife, and child of the deceased; and in view of comparatively smaller family to support, there was no reason for the Tribunal for not deducting at least one-third on the personal expenditure of the deceased. However, it seems that in view of the younger age of the deceased and his wife and child, the Tribunal, in order to assess maximum compensation for the claimants, as could be reasonably allowed on the facts of the cases, has preferred to apply unit system and thereby has taken loss of contribution at Rs.1,635/- per month. Therefore, even if there were any inadequacy in the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased the same is effectively balanced by taking higher figure towards loss of contribution for 4 the claimants. The Tribunal has applied maximum side multiplier of 17 as admissible in this case. Assessment of pecuniary loss by all standards is on the higher side and hence, even when the Tribunal has not allowed any separate amount towards funeral expenses, in the ultimate analysis the award cannot be said to be falling on the lower side or being grossly inadequate. The Tribunal has allowed Rs.15,000/- towards non- pecuniary loss and in the circumstances of the case, such amount cannot be said to be grossly inadequate. Addition of the amount as allowed by the Tribunal obviously leads to the total figure at Rs.3,49,000/- ( 3,34,000/- + 15,000/-) instead of the amount of Rs.3,39,000/- stated by the Tribunal. This being an obvious arithmetical error, nothing prevented the appellants from pointing out the same to the Tribunal for correction. However, merely for the purpose of correction of such arithmetical error, it does not appear appropriate to admit this appeal when otherwise the appeal remains bereft of substance. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily; subject of course to the observations aforesaid. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/