1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1950/2006 (Sunder Lal Vs. Pradeep Kumar & ors.) DATED : 3rd August 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.S.K.Sankhla for the appellant For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the claimant-appellant, husband of 19 years old vehicular accident victim Smt. Manju, the Tribunal has taken note of the submissions of the claimant that his wife was earning about Rs.3,000/- per month from tailoring work; that he was also engaged in tailoring job; and that he was handing over ladies garments for stitching to his wife. Though for want of cogent corroborative evidence, the Tribunal has not accepted the assertion on independent earning of the wife of the claimant; yet has taken her income at Rs.1,800/- per month; and having regard to the circumstances of the case including age of the claimant at 21 years and there being no issue, has considered it appropriate to take 50% of the estimated income of the deceased towards loss of contribution and, thus, has taken multiplicand at Rs.10,800/- per annum; and with application of multiplier of 16 has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.1,72,800/-. The Tribunal has further allowed Rs.5,000/- towards non- pecuniary loss, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and 2 Rs.1,000/- towards transportation and in this manner has made the award of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,80,800/-. The claimant seeks enhancement in this appeal. Learned counsel for the claimant has strenuously contended that the Tribunal has been in error in putting an estimate on the income of the victim only at Rs.1,800/- per month and then taking loss of contribution for the claimant only at Rs.900/- per month; and the award of compensation made on this basis remains grossly inadequate. The submissions are not well founded. There being no corroborative evidence in relation to the independent earnings of the victim, the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in putting an estimate on her income only with reference to minimum wages. The estimate so put at Rs.1,800/- per month, with reference to period of incident i.e., of the year 1998, cannot be said to be incorrect or insufficient. In the overall circumstances of the case and looking to the younger age group of the victim and the claimant, and there being no other dependents, the Tribunal was entirely justified in taking 50% of the estimated income towards loss of contribution. The matter could be viewed from another angle. The claimant has failed to establish the victim to be earning independently; and thus the Tribunal could have taken her 3 notional income at about Rs.15,000/- per annum. Yet, In the fact situation of this case, for the purpose of the claimant, not more than 50% could have been taken towards loss of contribution and calculated on that basis the amount of loss would be much lesser than that assessed by the Tribunal. Even if for the sake of arguments, the claimant be allowed one-third of notional income, i.e., Rs.10,000/- per annum, towards loss of contribution, yet with application of multiplier of 16 the amount of pecuniary loss would be lesser than that assessed by the Tribunal. Viewed from any angle, the award of compensation as made by the Tribunal in this case could only be said to be rather on the higher side; and rules out any scope for enhancement. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK