1 13 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1122/2006. Baldev Ram @ Badarram & Ors. Vs. Gurunam Singh Date of Order : 14th March 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. V.L. Thanvi, for the appellants. .... BY THE COURT: For quantification of compensation to be awarded to the parents of vehicular accident victim Pintu Ram alias Vijay Pal, about 21 years in age, the Tribunal has noticed the assertion of the claimants about the deceased earning Rs.3,000/- per month while working as Khalasi on a truck and another Rs.1,500/- from agriculture; but for want of cogent corroborative evidence has put an estimate on his income at Rs.2,000/- per month; and deducting one-third wherefrom and with application of multiplier of 17, has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.2,72,000/-. Allowing further Rs.25,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has made the award of compensation in the sum of Rs.2,97,000/- and has allowed interest @ 9% per annum after adjustment of the amount of Rs.50,000/-allowed under No Fault Liability. The award aforesaid is sought to be challenged in this appeal as being low and insufficient. Learned counsel for 2 the appellants contends that the income of the deceased was emphatically established on record particularly with the statements of the owner of the truck PW-2 Naina Ram who testified to the fact that the deceased was being paid salary at Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was earning in agriculture also but even if that component of income be not taken into consideration, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have put an estimate on the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.2,000/- and the award on that basis has fallen on much lower side. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and having perused the award impugned, this Court is satisfied that the award as made in this case rules out any scope for enhancement. The fundamental facts remain that the deceased was an unmarried person in 21 years of age with his parents being in the age of 45 and 43 years respectively. In the context of the present case, likelihood of the deceased getting married in future and a larger part of his income getting diverted to his own family could not have been ignored. Even if the assertion as sought to be made on behalf of the claimants about income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month is taken into consideration, as allegedly stated by the truck owner though not corroborated by relevant documentary evidence in 3 the form of his accounts, yet the loss of contribution for the purpose of the claimants could not have been taken more than one-half of the such income, i.e. not more than Rs.1,500/- per month. Then, in view of the age of the parents at 45 and 43 years, this Court is of opinion that even at the maximum, multiplier of 15 could only have been applied. Calculated in this manner, the pecuniary loss could only stand at Rs.2,70,000/- and not beyond. The Tribunal has further liberally allowed the amount towards general damages and yet further has proceeded to allow interest @ 9% per annum. In the ultimate analysis, the award 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. Mohan/