1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 190/2007 (Smt.Deepika & ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar & ors.) Date of Order :: 2nd April 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. M.K.Trivedi, for the appellants. For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the wife, three minor children and parents of the vehicular accident victim Sanjay Doshi, the Tribunal has noticed the assertion of the claimants that the deceased was about 34 years of age and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month in his business as a transporter managing his own city buses; but has found from the driving licence of the deceased (Ex.11) that his age was stated at 25 years as on 09.03.1989 and has, therefore, taken him above 40 years of age on the date of accident i.e., 03.05.2004. The Tribunal has referred to the registration certificates of two vehicles, Ex.12 and Ex.13, standing respectively in the name of wife of the deceased (claimant No.1) and the deceased himself but has noticed the admission of the claimant-wife that no documentary evidence in relation to the income of the deceased at about Rs.7,000-Rs.8,000/- was produced. The Tribunal has also made a comment that if at all the vehicles were being managed by the deceased, the related documents including route permits ought to be 2 available and so also the accounts. For want of such relevant documentary evidence, but looking to the number of dependents and in the overall circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has put an estimate on the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and deducting one-third wherefrom has taken loss of dependency at Rs.2,000/- per month leading to annual multiplicand of Rs.24,000/- and has capitalised with multiplier of 15 to assess pecuniary loss at Rs.3,60,000/-. Allowing Rs.40,000/- towards general damages, the Tribunal has made the award in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and has allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. Assailing the award aforesaid and seeking enhancement, learned counsel strenuously contended that the Tribunal has been in error in taking a meagre amount of Rs.2,000/- towards loss of dependency particularly when it has been established that the deceased was a city bus operator and although the claimants could not produce relevant accounts, but even on a conservative estimate his income and resultant contribution to the claimants cannot be taken merely at Rs.2,000/- per month and then, application of multiplier of 15 has also been on the lower side. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the award made by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. Though in the proportion of assertion as made by the 3 claimants on the income of the deceased at about Rs.7,000- Rs.8,000/- per month, the ultimate assessment of pecuniary loss as made by the Tribunal in the sum of Rs.3,60,000/- appears to be on the lower side but a close look at the record makes it evident that on the evidence as adduced and as withheld, no amount of compensation higher than that awarded by the Tribunal is available for the claimants. It is noticed that out of the two vehicles allegedly managed by the deceased, one was in the name of wife of deceased i.e., the claimant No.1 herself. It has been suggested by the claimant-wife that for nobody being available to manage and maintain, both the vehicles were required to be sold but then, no such documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that the vehicles had been transferred by the claimants; and the copies of registration certificates of the vehicles Ex.12 and Ex.13 do not record any such transfer endorsement. The assertion of claimants on the income of the deceased at about Rs.7,000/- per month while managing the city buses could not have been accepted for want of documentary proof and the observation as made by the Tribunal in that regard cannot be said to be unwarranted or unjustified. Then, for the very nature of sources of income suggested, the aspect of a part of such business income being available to the claimants or at least the income yielding sources being available can neither be denied nor ignored. 4 In the overall circumstances of the case, the estimate on loss of dependency at Rs.24,000/- per annum in the present case, though moderate, cannot be said to be entirely improper. Application of multiplier of 15 is also justified in view of the deceased being above 40 years of age as noticeable from his driving licence Ex.11 where his age was stated at 25 years as on 09.03.1989, date of accident being 03.05.2004. The claimants were not forthright while claiming compensation when they stated the age of the deceased only at 34 years. In the ultimate analysis, the award made by the Tribunal does not appear to be so inadequate as to warrant interference in appeal. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.