1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 697/2007 (Raj Kunwar & ors. Vs. Shambhu Singh & ors.) Date of Order :: 22nd February 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. D.S.Rathore for the appellant For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the wife and six children of the vehicular accident victim Ratan Singh, said to be earning Rs.5,000/- per month while working with the Animal Husbandry Department and further Rs.3,000- 4000/- per month from agriculture and veterinary practice, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased at 50 years as suggested by the claimants; has found from the certificate Ex.12 that his net carry-home income was of Rs.5,157/- per month; and deducting one-third wherefrom on his personal expenditure and with application of multiplier of 10 with reference to remaining years of service, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.4,12,560/-. The Tribunal has observed that though a multiplier of 11 is provided under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for the victim in the age group of 50-55 years but the said Schedule was only of basic guideline and when the period of service of the victim is certain, the same is required to be kept in view to assess the 2 loss of income; and in the present case for ten years of service of the deceased left, it was proper to calculate the loss of salary income for 10 years only. However, the Tribunal has observed that the deceased was likely to earn even after retirement and on that score has added an amount of Rs.67,440/-. The Tribunal has disallowed the claim of loss in relation to the agriculture income with the observation that such source of income was yet available to the claimants. Then, the Tribunal has proceeded to award an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards general damages while allowing Rs.10,000/- to each of the claimants towards loss of guidance and another Rs.8,000/- to the wife towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In this manner, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation to the claimants in the sum of Rs.5,60,000/- and has allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. Assailing the award aforesaid as low and inadequate, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has erred: (i) in taking net income of the deceased much lower than that shown by his salary certificate Ex.12; and (ii) in applying multiplier of 10 with mere reference to the remaining years of service though in view of the age of the deceased a multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied. The submissions are bereft of substance. 3 On an overall comprehension of the considerations adopted and the ultimate amount awarded by the Tribunal, this Court is clearly of opinion that the amount of compensation as assessed in this case could only be said to be rather excessive than that of just compensation. Though the Tribunal has rightly assessed the annual multiplicand at Rs.41,256/- on the basis of net carry-home income of the deceased but has not restricted merely on application of multiplier of 10 to assess such loss at Rs.4,12,560/-; and has proceeded to add another Rs.67,440/- towards future earnings. Thus, on the whole, even if higher multiplier as such has not been stated by the Tribunal, final assessment of pecuniary loss in the sum of Rs.4,80,000/- cannot be said to be inadequate from any standpoint. Then, by allowing an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards general damages, the Tribunal has taken the award much on the higher side. Claim for enhancement over the amount liberally awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.5,60,000/- can only be rejected as baseless. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.